Anders Juul Nielsen (the Consumer Brand Relationship Paradox) 2015 Master [616432]

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP
PARADOX

Anders Juul Nielsen

Dissertation submitted as partial requirement for the conferral of

Master in Marketing

Supervisor:
Prof. Hélia Gonçalves Pereira, ISCTE Business School, Marketing, Operatio ns and
Management

Co-supervisor:
Prof. Maria Fátima Salgueiro, ISCTE Business School , Department of Quantitative Methods
for Management and Economics

May 2015

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

Acknowledgements
Creating my dissertati on ha s been a long and tough process. A process wherei n I have received
a great deal of encouragement, sparring and guidance from supportive people.
Thanks to my supervisor -team professor Hélia Pereira and Fatima Sálgueiro. Your experience
and guidance have been instrumental to the final result of this disser tation.
To Helia for taking the time to review even the smallest details and provide easy understandable
guidance on complex matters. I might have been a tough student: [anonimizat], I can , with almost statistical certainty, guarantee that the end results
of this dissertation would have be en of lower quality.
Finally, to my wife. You have wo rked harder than ever with a job and you r own master
dissertation on the side. Still, you have been my daily sparring partner and my own private supervisor
that has guided and revised any important choices of structure, method or approach made in this
dissertation. You have provided your knowledge, love and understandi ng throughout the entire period.
You have cheered me up, helped me through the tough periods and made the easy period s so much
easier.

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

Abstrac t
This study att empts to investig ate and understand the unexplored paradoxical
intersection between a relationship -oriented marketing philosophy and consumers who are
seemingly uninterested in relational behaviour with brands. A mixture of quantitative and
qualitative methods have been ap plied with the aim to illuminate t his paradox through extensive
revision of relevant literature , and implementation of empirical research.
The research provided evidence that commitment, engagement and involvement are
instrumental variables in relation to consumers’ interest in relational behaviour. They were
found to statistically predict the level of brand loyalty. Respondents depict ed low levels of
involve ment, commitment, engagement and brand lo yalty. Likewise had significant negative
respon ses towards relationship offerings (ROs) from brands . This was though significantl y
determined by the level of RO s. A number of three to four ROs in a month were found to have
remarkably negative impact on consumers behavioural brand loyalty (BBL), attitudinal brand
loyalty (AB L) and intentions to recommend (ITR) a brand .
Likewise , consumers’ motivation for engaging with brands were steered by simpler
motives as making a purchase, getting discounts and receiving customer service . Thus, provide
additional evidence to the claim that consumers have little interest in deep relationships with
brands. The main conclusion is that a consumer -brand relationship (CBR) paradox exist.
Consequently, marketers must realise that not al l consumers are receptive to RO s or interested
in brand relationships . Thus, cannot be managed as relationships and without consequences be
forced into one. Subsequently, marketing thinking and efforts should be diversified and account
for this.

Keywords: Relationship marketing, c onsumer -brand relatio nships, relationship offerings,
consumer -brand relationship paradox.
JEL classification system
M30 – General
M31 – Marketing

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX
i
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………. 1
1.1 Theme ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………………. 1
1.2 Research Problem ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …………. 3
1.3 Research Objectives ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……… 4
1.4 Structure of the Dissertation ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………………….. 6
2. Literature Review ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………. 7
2.1 From Marketing to Relationship Marketing ………………………….. ………………………….. ….. 7
2.2 Defining a Customer Relationship ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………. 8
2.3 The Emergence of Relationship Marketing and a New Market ………………………….. ….. 10
2.4 Consumer -Brand Relationships ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………. 12
2.5 Defining Customer Value ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………………. 14
2.6 Marketing to a New Gener ation ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………… 15
2.7 Customer Engagement, Commitment and Involvement ………………………….. …………….. 16
2.8 Interaction and Cognitive Overload ………………………….. ………………………….. …………… 18
2.9 Understanding Brand Loyalty ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………… 19
2.10 Critique of Relationship Marketing and Consumer -Brand Relationships ……………….. 22
3. Research Methodology ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……… 24
3.1 Methodological Paradigms ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………………….. 24
3.1.1 Purpose of Research ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. . 24
3.1.2 Data Collection Method ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………………… 25
3.1.3 Reasoning Method ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. … 25
3.1.4 Sampling Method ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ….. 25
3.1.5 Primary and Secondary Data ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………. 27
3.1.6 Sample Size ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………….. 27
3.2 Methodologic al Choices for Analysis of Quantitative Data ………………………….. ……….. 28
3.2.1 Planning Quota Sampling ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………… 28

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

ii
3.2.2 Measurements of variables ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………. 28
3.2.3 Conceptualization and Operationalization ………………………….. …………………………. 28
3.2.4 Questionnaire Instrument ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………………. 29
3.2.5 Type of Questionnaire and Administration Methods ………………………….. …………… 31
3.4 Methodological Choices for Analysis of Qualitative Data ………………………….. …………. 33
3.4.1 Interview Approach ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. . 33
3.4.2 Presentation of Interview Participants ………………………….. ………………………….. ….. 33
3.4.3 Transcription ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………… 34
4. Empirical Research ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………….. 35
4.1 Quantitative and Qualitative Research ………………………….. ………………………….. ……….. 35
4.2 Qualitative Study ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………… 35
4.2.1Qualitative Analysis of Interviews ………………………….. ………………………….. ………… 35
4.2.2 RO1: Explore consumers’ interest in relational behaviour with brands, and uncover
their re sponses to relationship offerings from brands. ………………………….. …………………. 35
4.2.3 RO2: Identify what motivates consumers to engage/interact with brands, and
examine if their motivation depends on their level of engageme nt, commitment or
involvement. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………. 40
4.2.4 RO3: Understand Brand Loyalty and How It Relates to Involvement, Commitment
and Engagement. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …………… 45
4.3 Quantitative Analysis of Questionnaire ………………………….. ………………………….. ………. 49
4.3.1 Exploratory Data Analysis ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………….. 49
4.3.2 Descriptive Analysis of Individual Var iables ………………………….. …………………….. 51
4.4 Hypothesis Testing ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……… 60
4.4.1 RO1: Explore consumers’ interest in relational behaviour with brands, and uncover
their responses to relationship offerings from brands. ………………………….. …………………. 60
4.4.2 RO2: Identify what motivates consumers to engage/interact with brands, and
examine if their motivation depends on their level of engage ment, commitment or
involvement. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………. 61

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

iii
4.4.3 RO3: Understand Brand Loyalty and How It Relates to Involvement, Commitment
and Engagement ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………. 65
5. Conclusion ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………. 67
5.1 Summary of Findings and Conclusions ………………………….. ………………………….. ………. 67
5.1.1 RO1: Explore consumers’ interest in relational behaviour w ith brands, and uncover
their responses to relationship offerings from brands. ………………………….. …………………. 67
5.1.2 RO2: Identify what motivates consumers to engage/interact with brands, and
examine if their motivation de pends on their level of engagement, commitment or
involvement. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………. 68
5.1.3 RO3: Understand brand loyalty and how it relates to involvement, commitment and
engagement. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………. 69
5.2 Implications ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………….. 70
5.3 Limitations of Research ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. .. 71
5.4 Suggestions for Further Research ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………. 72
References ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. 74
Appendix 1 – Mixed method research design ………………………….. ………………………….. ……….. 85
Appendix 2 – Quota sample calculations ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………… 86
Appendix 3 – Statistics for quota sample ………………………….. ………………………….. …………….. 87
Appendix 4 – Statistics for quota sample ………………………….. ………………………….. …………….. 88
Appendix 5 – Statistics for quota sample ………………………….. ………………………….. …………….. 90
Appendix 6 -Questionnaire ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …… 91
Appe ndix 7 – Cronbach’s Alpha reliability values for summated scales ………………………….. . 97
Appendix 8 – Interview guide ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. … 99
Appendix 9 -Interview transcri pts ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………….. 101
Appendix 10 – Frequency of socio -demographic variables ………………………….. ………………. 160
Appendix 11 – Descriptive statistics of summated scales ………………………….. …………………. 161
Appendix 12 – Distribution of responses related to motivation ………………………….. …………. 162
Appendix 13 – Paired samples t -test ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………….. 163

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

iv
Appendix 14 – Paired samples t -test ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………….. 165
Appendix 15 – Paired samples t -test ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………….. 167
Appendix 16 – Scatterplot -matrix to check linearity assumption ………………………….. ……….. 169
Appendix 17 – Correlations between commitment, involvement an d engagement …………… 170
Appendix 18 – Graphs concerning the most and the least important types of motivation,
depending on involvement ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ….. 171
Appendix 19 – Graphs concerning the most and the least important types of mot ivation,
depending on commitment ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ….. 174
Appendix 20 – Scatterplots for linear regression ………………………….. ………………………….. …. 177
Appendix 21 – Multiple linear regression outputs ………………………….. ………………………….. .. 179

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

v
List of figures
Figure 1 – Distribution of age in groups ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………. 50
Figure 2 – Distribution of education levels ………………………….. ………………………….. …………… 50
Figure 3 . Distribution of salary in a year in groups (in DKK) ………………………….. ……………. 50
Figure 4 – Behavioural brand loyalty 1 -2 relationship offerings ………………………….. ………….. 52
Figure 5 – Behavioural brand loyalty 3 -4 relationship offerings ………………………….. ………….. 52
Figure 6 – Attitudinal brand loyalty 1 -2 relationship offerings ………………………….. ……………. 53
Figure 7 – Attitudinal brand loyalty 3 -4 relationship offers ………………………….. ………………… 53
Figure 8 – Intentions to recommend a brand 1 -2 relationship offers ………………………….. …….. 54
Figure 9 – Intentions to recommend a brand 3 -4 relationship offers ………………………….. …….. 54
Figure 10 – Mean values of responses to individual questions related to BBL, ABL and ITR a
brand ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……… 55
Figure 11 – Distribution of the gaps, depending on the number of ROs (1 -2 vs 3.4) ………….. 55
Figure 12 – Individual question measuring involvement ………………………….. ……………………. 56
Figure 13 – Individual questions measuring commitment ………………………….. …………………… 57
Figure 14 – Individual questions measuring engagement ………………………….. ……………………. 57
Figure 15 – Individual questions measuring brand loyalty ………………………….. ………………….. 58
Figure 16 – Mean ranking of the motivation variables 1=most important; 12=least important 59
Figure 17 – Motivation "to get discounts", varying with the level of engagement ……………… 62
Figure 18 – Motivation "to get customer service", varyin g with the level of engagement …… 63
Figure 19 – Motivation "to make a purchase", varying with the level of engagement ………… 63
Figure 20 – Motivation "to feel connected to the brand", varying with the level of engagement
………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………… 64
Figure 21 – Motivation "to be part of a community", varying with the level of engagement .. 64

List of tables
Table 1 – questionnaire instrument with conceptual definition, operationalizing and alpha
coefficients. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………… 29
Table 2 – Presentation of interview participants ………………………….. ………………………….. …… 33

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX
1
1. Introduction
The scope of this dissertation is to generate knowledge and gain an understanding of a
paradoxical intersection . A paradox that seems to exist between the relationship marketing
(RM) oriented philosophy and consumer s disinterests in forming relationships with brands . The
marketing literature is filled with research within RM . Including research on strong and
committed relationships, benefits of CBR s, strong emotional bonds, relationship building and
many elements related to acquiring loyal customers through RM. Yet, recent data suggests that
consumers’ are generally uninterested in relationships with bra nds. However, this has
seemingly not be problematiz ed. This might be a result of a general captivation for the
technological opportunities and the extensive research on the potential benefits of strong,
committed and long -term relationships.
1.1 Theme
Brands nowadays attempt to build long -lasting, deep and interactive relationships with
consumer s. Thus, realise that in today’s competitive environment , acquiring new customers is
challenging and expensive. Keeping customers to boost brand loyalty is regarded as pivotal to
success . According to a large scal e study conducted by Accenture (2011 ), consumers nowadays
change between brands more frequently and look for deals increasingly more. Interestingly,
Accenture points out that this is in spite of increased satisfaction with firms’ customer services.
In tot al, only one in four consumers perceive themselves as brand loyal, whereas a similar
percentage see themselves as hav ing no loyalty at all (Accenture , 2011).
Acade mics have been broadcasting the important message of retaining current
customers for decades . In this context, stating that firms should nowadays aim to be defined by
customer’s through continuous relationships, trust and commitment (Krasnikov , Jayachandran ,
& Kumar , 2009). As such, marketing has evolved from the original transactional -based
mark eting to RM (Grönross , 2006 ). A strategy that, as implied by its name, focus es on building
close relationships with consumers to get loyal customers.
Within this new marketing paradigm, custome r relationship management (CRM) has its
roots . A term commonl y used interchangeably wi th RM ( Sheth & Parvatiyar, 2001 ). It is
therefore important to highlight the distinction and understand th e difference between CRM
and RM. Accordingly, get a complete understanding of the focus point in this dissertation.

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

2
CRM is d efined as the “values and strategies of relationship marketing – with particular
emphasis on customer relationships – turned into pr actical application” (Gummesson, 2002, p.
3). In other w ords, it focus es on “engaging customers in long -term relationships so that the
firm can learn about customers’ individual needs” (Nguyen, 2012 , p. 58). In this line of thought,
RM can be regarded as a supporting element to CRM. On the other hand , CRM is what makes
RM valid a nd reliable (Shukla, 2010 ), by operationalizing the RM theories . This means that
RM is not a clear or complete concept with unwavering objectives and strategies (Egan, 2008 ).
Gummesson (2008 ) explains this perfectly by stressing that RM is “an attitude and CRM a tool ”
(p. 339).
In this study , the focus will primarily be on RM rather than CRM . Consequently, on the
attitude , the philosophy, of RM rather than on the actual tools that companies apply. A
significant reason being that that companies often have widely different perspectives on CRM.
Payne & Fro w (2013) identified no less than three ways in which CRM is often viewed,
meaning that CRM is applied and viewed in diverse ways depending on the market and industry .
As a result, it would be difficult to make a general discussion regarding the certain CRM
activities that companies practice. Consequently, the approach of this study will b e theoretical
and generic of nature. Thus, not concerned with the actual marketing activities pr acticed by
individual companies.
In the discussion of RM, engagement is a key word. Marketing were once a one -way
street of communication, but that is completely changed today . Therefore, firms’ are
recommended to create dialogues and engage with consumers through the vast amount of means
technology offers today. E ncouraging engagement, trust and commitment through different
media is therefore a common way of mana ging customer relationships and giving customers
unique value. T his mind -set of creating value for customers has, to a certain extent, been
necessary to satisfy nowadays extremely powerful consumers. In a world where 89% of
consumers switch to a competitor following one negative experience , and where 26% publicly
broadcast their negative experience on social media (Harris Interactive , 2011) , companies
simply cannot afford dissatisfied customers .
Companies nowadays therefore commonly attempt to build strong CBR s by interacting
with consumers and encouraging engagement with their RM mind -set and CRM strategies .
Ultimately, hoping to gain a nd maintain a loyal customer base. However, sceptic and
uninterested consumers are reluctant to engage in deep brand relationships. Nevertheless,

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

3
marketing academics have encouraged extensive focus on precisely relationship building for
decades (Section 2.1). This paradoxical intersection is refer red to as the CBR paradox in this
study , and is the major theme of th is dissertation.
A survey by Havas media (2013) suggests that 73% of consumers in the world, and 92%
of consumers in Europe and the US, would not care if brands disappeared. Furt hermore, only
20 % of brands are perceived to have a notable positive impact on consumers’ sense of well –
being and quality of life. These data su ggest that companies, in general, are unable to underst and
and satisfy consumers’ needs . Paradoxical, consideri ng that customer centricity is the focal area
of attention in marketing today. Furthermore, clearly suggesting that consumers are not highly
loyal or interested in relationships with brands. Thus, raising a need to understand consumers ,
particularly their level of loyalty and interest in relational behaviour with brands.
Consumers are constantly evolving and the latest trend is consumers’ increasingly wide –
ranging level of cynicism, scepticism and indifference towards brands . A tendency that has
resulted in a general decline in trust, respect and loyalty from consumers to brands (Havas
media , 2013). The cynicism, scepticism and indifference towards brands may be the reason
why only 20% of consumers are actually willing to engage in relationships with brands
(Corporate Executive Board (CEB) , 2012 ). A surprising and thought -provoking fact that
disconnects with the philosophy of treating customers as relationships.
Overall, these facts s howcase how consumers are constantly changing, and begs the
question; if 80 % of consumers are uninteres ted in brand relationships, how come the current
marketing philosophy is centred around precisely relationships? This is a central theme in this
study and the starting point for the research problem, which will be clarified n ext.
1.2 Research P roblem
This master dissertation will explore the paradoxical intersection between the
relationship -oriented marketing philosophy and consumers’ lack of interest in relationships .
Many have illuminated the development within CBR s and the transition f rom transactional to
RM (Section 2.3). Thus, explained how marketing and brand management have developed
throughout the years owing to significant changes in the marketplace. Here, pointing out that
engaging prospects and forging relationships with customers is the avenue to success.
Furthermore, stressing that marketing encompass more than return on investm ents by
suggesting the concept of Return on Relationships (ROR). ROR is defined as “the value that is

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

4
accrued by a person or brand due to n urturing a relationship”, compared to ROI which is
“simple dollars and cents” (R ubin and Rose, 2013 , p. 24-25).
Recent statistics though suggest that consumers’ are uninterested in relationships with
brands (Section 1.1 ). This point to a curious paradox between the current RM approach and
customers’ interests in relationships . Yet, a paradox which seems to have been slight ly
overlooked in the literature . The marketing literature is filled with extensive research on strong,
committed brand relationships tha t may have led to this paradox not being problematized.
Deriving, t he main purpose of this dissertation is to understand if there is a mismatch between
the focus on relationships and consumer’s interest in relational behaviour with brands. Thus,
this stud y will be highly customer -oriented.
It is certainly not the intent ion of this dissertation to question the philosophy or theory
of RM , nor to dismiss RM as a strategic marketing approach . RM is undoubtedly necessary for
companies to attain and retain the current troublesome a nd powerful 20 % of consumers
interested in CBR s (CEB, 2012). This is particularly the case as this includes firms’ most
important customers e.g. brand advocates, brand lovers or heavy users. The intention is
nevertheless to investigat e the appropriateness and effectiveness of basing current marketing
strategies blindly on a RM philosophy i.e. on f orging long -term relationships with all
customers. Does a blind focus on build ing relationships, in fact annoy current consumers, scare
off p otential customers or even destroy relationships ? What about the 80% of consumers that
view brands as redundant and are unwilling to engage in relationships with brands? (Section
1.1). What might the adverse effects of having an overall relationship orient ed marketing
approach be? What are consumers’ response to this? And w hat d oes this mean in relation to
brand loyalty ?
80% is a significant percentage that must be treated with high importance. Accordingly,
it is imperative to understand these customers , while still considering the critical remaining 20
% of consumers. Here, acquire an understanding of their interest , or lack hereof, in relational
behaviour with brands and responses to ROs. Finally , investigate what this means for marketers .
Thus, realise whether there is a need to diversify the current RM thinking.
1.3 Research O bjectives
The purpose of this study is to illuminate the paradox between a marketing theory
revolved around relationships and consumers who are uninterested in relationships. In t his
context, advance an understanding of the potential implications of f ocusing on building

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

5
relationships, when research suggest that a significant percentage of consumers are uninterested
in relationships and view brands as redundant (Section 1.2).
Deriv ing, with consideration to the problem background, the overall aim of this research is:
 To explore consumers’ interest in relational behaviour with brands and elucidate
how this (dis)connects with a relationship oriented marketing philosophy.
To achieve t his research objective , the follow sub -research objectives must be met:
 RO1: Explore consumers’ interest in relational behaviour with brands, and
uncover their responses to relationship offerings from brands.
 RO2: Identify what motivates consumers to eng age/interact with brands , and
examine if their motivation depends on their level of engagement, commitment or
involvement.
 RO3: Understand brand loyalty and how it relates to involvement, commitment
and engagement .
RO1 directly relates to the heart of th e main research objective . Consequently, will
direct ly aid to explore consumer’s interest in relational behaviour with brands. Nonetheless,
RO2 and RO3 play a significant role in the process of validating the research findings of the
first research objecti ve. The two sub-research objectives are likewise related to the aim of
exploring consumers’ interest in relational behaviour with brands . Consequently, meeting RO2
and RO3 will add additional support and strength to the most instrumental conclusions of thi s
study , by exploring consumers’ interest in relational behaviour with brands from different
angles .
In order to fulfil the sub-research objectives , the development of statistically testable
hypotheses is necessary. The creation of hypotheses enables the development of further
explanations, of the relevant variables under investigation , and the relationship between or
among these variables (Goldhor, 1972). These hypotheses will be presented during the literature
review and in the quantitative analyses (Section 4.4).
The target market for the study will be limited to the Danish population , owing to
obvious research limitations .

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

6
1.4 Structure of the D issertation
The structure of this dissertation consists of five overall chapters. Chapter one
introduces th e theme an d research problem of the dissertation . The aim is here to provide the
reader with a clear insight into the relevance, perspective and c ontext of the research problem.
In the second chapter , an extensive literature review lays the groundwork for the
reminding part of the dissertation . Booth & Beile (2005 ) explains it perfectly “a researcher
cannot perform significant research without first understanding the literature in the field” (p.
3). The review starts by looking into general el ements as def inition of concept. Subsequently,
moves into specific details while identifying influential researchers within the field. By the end,
the reader should be able to understand the rationalization of the significance of the research
problem and understand the subject structure.
In the third chapter , the methodological paradigms will be outlined. Here, all methods
utilized during the research process will be clarified. Each research meth od will be critically
approached and the inclusion or exclusion of any rel evant method will be justified.
Next, the fourth chapter includes the analysis and discussion of the primary data. This
includes qualitative analyses of the semi -structured interviews and quantitative SPSS analyses
of data collected by questionnaire. The last chapter will undertake a reflective approach wherein
discussions and results will be the source for evaluations and conclusions. Moreover ,
limitations of the research , implications and suggestions for further research will finalise this
section.

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

7
2. Literature Review
In order to answer the research problem, a solid theoretical foundation is needed. This
foundation will hence become the starting -point for the empir ical investigation s.
Typically, a literature review would encompass all relevant previous research
concerning the research problem. However, while statistics suggest that the research problem
is relevant to investigate, no academics ’ seems to have conducted research concerning the
specific research problem , to the best of knowledge .
Some have criticized the en tire brand -relationship concept, pointed out issues with RM
and a few have mentione d that not all consumers want relationships with brands. Nevertheless,
far from illuminated the paradox between the marketing philosophy of buildi ng long -lasting
relationships and the vast majority of consumers’ being uninterested in relationships with
brands. These will obviously be presented here, but the majority of the literature review will be
related to RM. Consequently, i nclud e definitions, the emergence of RM, CBR s, marketing to a
new generation of consumers , and key variables within the subject as customer value, brand
loyalty , commitment, involvement and engagement . Without a complete understanding of these
elements, the development of empi rical research would be based on a vague foundation .
The review starts from a general perspectives and continues by divi ng into specific
aspects related to the issue at hand.
2.1 From Marketing to Relationship M arketing
The American Marketing Association (AMA) defines marketing as “the activity, set of
institutions, and processes for creating, communicating, delivering and exchanging offerings
that have value for customers, clients, partners and society at large ” (American Marketing
Association, 2013 ). This citation from the AMA defines marketing as a process where the key
is to cre ate value for all stakeholders, albeit provides no explanation of what value encompasses.
This is probably not by accident as sources of value is a complex matter (Section 2.5). It is
though certain that stakeholders, particularly customers , perception of value have changed
significantly over the last decades . Therefore, marketing strategies had to become customer –
centric, wherein the needs of the individual are regarded more imp ortant than the needs of the
mass market. Thus, marketing shifted away from the product -centric and market -centric
approach of transactional based marketing and instead considered the c ustomer as the starting
point for the planning process (Grönross , 2006 ).

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

8
The process of managing relationships is at the core of marketing today . Researchers
already noticed this trend in the ‘70s and ‘80s where many argued that socio -economic changes
required a paradigm shift from transactions to relationships. However , it was first in 19 83 that
one of the pioneers of RM came up with t he philosophy: “attracting, maintaining and – in multi –
service organizations – enhancing customer relationships” (Berry , 1983 , p. 25).
Another significant author within RM is Grönross (1994). His definition of RM is one
of the most frequently cited and most complete definitions of RM covering all the seven
elements of RM : birth, develop, maintain, temporal, interaction, output and emotional content.
He defines RM as the “process of identifying and establishing, maintaining, enhancing , and
when necessary terminating relationships with customers and others stakeholders, at a profit,
so that the objectives of all parties involved are met, where this is done by a mutual giving and
fulfilment of prom ises” (Grönroos , 1997 , p. 407). Thus, RM as a concept relates to developing
and maintaining long -term relationships with stakeholders that benefit both parties and where
value can be created together.
2.2 D efining a C ustomer Relationship
At first glance, it might seem obvious what a relationship between a brand and a
customer is. However, fact is that marketing academics cannot seem to agree on a common
definition. Lindberg -Repo and Grönross (2004) argued that a relationship exists when a
behavioural and e motional connection has been established between a customer and a brand.
Storbacka and Lehtinen (2001) partly agrees, though adds that an attitudinal components is
required, arguing that part of customers heart and mind must be committed for a relationship to
exists. Contradictory, others simply refer to any customer that makes a repeat purchase as one
having a relationship with a brand, as Grönross (2006) pointed out. No research however seem
to consider how consumers define or view a CBR. As such, this wi ll be inves tigated in the
empirical part with the aim of understanding consumers’ level of loyalty . Subsequently, clarify
their interests in relationships with bra nds (Section 4.2.4 ).
Grönross (2006 ) further concludes that unless a customer repurchasing o nce or twice is
considered to have a brand relationship, the idea that all customers can be managed as
relationships is misguided. The same author (2006) though firmly explain s that considering
every repurchasing customer to have a brand relationship is na ive. Repurchasing can often be
the simple result of complex supplier changing processes or a lack of alternatives (Diller , 2000).
Grönross (2006 ) thus states that forcing all customers into relationships will result in

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

9
inappropriate, ineffective and ineffi cient marketing activities and behaviour. Subsequently,
stressing that some consumers are in relationship modes whereas others are not. Therefore,
managing customers in a relational manner should never be a generic approach.
Fournier , Dobscha , and Mick (2008) also noted that consumers might be annoyed by
the numerous ROs: “Companies may delight in learning more about their customers than ever
before and in providing features and services to please every possible palate. But customers
delight in neither. Cu stomers cope. They tolerate sales clerks who hound them with questions
every time they buy a battery… They juggle the flood of invitations to participate in frequent
buyer rewards programs” ( p. 43). Thus, underlining the importance of having a more versati le
approach to relationships that considers consumers’ viewpoint. Similarly, Jackson (1985) and
Barnes (2000) explain that consumers all have different needs for relat ionships with a given
supplier. Other researchers noted that some customers are just unwilling and disinterested in
form ing relationships with suppliers (Fournier , 1998; Diller , 2000) , and in being brand loyal
(Fournie r, 1998; J. Aaker , Fournier , & Brasel , 2004). Furthermore, consumers will always seek
variety and value will always be subjecti ve to the individual (Drolet, 2002) .
These findings clearly support Grönross ’ (2006 ) notion that a generic approach to
dealing with customers is inappropriate. To satisfy customers’ diverse needs for relationships,
a company should therefore consider diff erent relational segments (Aaker , 1996 ). This relates
significantly to the research problem and the belief that there might be a clear disconnect
between the notion of building relationships with consumers, when the majority of consumers
are uninterested i n relationships. Thus, suggest ing that all customers cannot be treated and
managed on the basis of a RM philosophy (Section 3; Aaker , 1996). The attempt to build
relationships can instead be the exact thing that manages to destroy it (Fournier et al., 1998 ).
Nonetheless, as mentioned earlier, the purpose is not to dismiss the theory of RM
(Section 1.2). The objective is to explore the paradox between a marketing philosophy of
managing customers as relationships and consumers who are un interested in relation ships. In
this context, investigate how consumers respond to relationship oriented marketing activities.
In this study, relationship oriented marketing activities are defined as “relationship offerings”
(ROs) which is here determined to e ncompass any marke ting activity that aims to build
relationships with customers as emails, newsletters, sales clerks, loyalty programs, membership
programs and any other acti vity that directly attempts to build relationships with customers i.e.
make customers loyal.

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

10
This leads to the formulation of the following hypotheses:
 H1: The number of relationship offerings negatively affect s the impact of relationship
offerings on the respondents behavioural brand loyalty
 H2: The number of relationship offerings negatively affec ts the impact of relationship
offerings on the respondents attitudinal brand loyalty
 H3: The number of relationship offerings negatively affect s the impact of relationship
offerings on the respondents intentions to recommend a brand
2.3 The E mergence of Relationship M arketing and a New M arket
Since the consumer go ods-oriented marketing approach, where the transaction was
regarded as the essence of marketing (Bagozzi, 1975; Hunt, 1976), several marketing paradigms
have emerged. These include service marketi ng, network -based business -to-business marketing
(IMP -approach) and RM (Grönross , 2006).
The concept of RM is founded on the idea of using effective marketing activitie s to
increase customer retention to gain economic advantages (Bhattacharya & Bolton, 20 00).
Consequently, build long -term customer relationships , rather than acquiring new customers .
This adoption of RM strategies caused a clear paradigm shift afar from the classical 4’ps of
marketing approach, as noted by Grö nross (1994) 20 years ago . Initially, RM was merely
considered a mass -marketing approach and was restricted to database marketing, affinity
marketing and regional marketing (Sheth & Parvatier, 1995). Many academics though noted
that c ustomer involvement was critical for the creation of b rand experience. Consequently,
establishing a need for a strategic approach that f ocused on the relational aspects and
individualization (Keller, 1998; Grönross, 2001 ; Gummesson , 2003).
Several other factors led to the necessity for adopting RM and evolve from the original
mass -marketing approach. Firstly, increased globalisation , intensification of competition and
saturation of the market forced companies to acquire success through long -term customer
relationships (Kuusik , 2007). This is partially a conse quence of the technological progression
contributing to a vast amount of sales channels, higher production volumes and lower prices .
As competition intensified and products became easier to distribute , product availability
significantly increased . This mea nt that consumers started to face a greater qu antity of product
choices. Hence, “products and services are facing commoditization as never before ” (Prahalad
& Ramaswamy, 2004 , p. 7), where product s are increasingly seen as being similar. This is a
clear re sult of globalization, deregulation and merging industries and technologi es (Prahalad &

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

11
Ramaswamy, 2004 ). Therefor e, companies are challenged with adapting to the changing
dynamic and increasingly globalised environment to remain competitive.
Today, the progressions within information technology have caused a digital revolution
that has changed relationship s between companies and customers forever . As consumer s’ have
become increasingly aware, digital and active, power has shifted from the hands of firms’ t o
the hands of consumers’ . Consequently, the days with uni -directional flows of communication,
and all out organizational and mass media power are extinct. Today communication is multi –
dimensional , occurring in -between a vast amount of parties within which consumers can exert
their power (Fill, 2009) . Particularly this empowerment of consumers h ave significantly
affected the way in which companies are expected to act , and the consequences of not acting
accordingly. As a result , the marketing philosophy needed a r elational approach that focus es
on providing customers’ with value . Thus , marketing has undergone a total reconceptualization
in its orientation from the traditional transactional based, product and market centric approach,
to a customer -centric RM approach ( Lindberg -Repo & Grönross , 2004 ).
In the traditional concept, the transaction was the focal area of attention (Cosic & Djuric ,
2010). Companies primarily focused on attracting consumers with little emphasis on
maintaining them . For decades, this strategy worked, however, at a certain point companies
could no longer gain competitive advantages solely through optimization of product
characteristics and price (Kuusik , 2007) . As the market place became more competitive,
companies realised that to main tain long-term profits , satisfaction among current customers had
to be established . A strategy also found to be more cost -effective than attracting new ones
(Kanagal , 2009 ). To solve this issue , Companies realised the need for attention on relational
aspec ts of marketing . Hence, adopted a strategy that focused more on customer retention than
customer acquisition, thus on building brand loyalty (Nakleh , 2012). This is also reflected in
the marketing literature where studies shifted from the transactional, ma rketing mix
management (price, place, product and promotion) approach, to the rela tionship -marketing
practice ( Sweidan, G. Al -Dmour, Zubi, & R. Al -Dmour, 2012). Consequently, marketing must,
according to the literature, be considered in the context of RM. Deriving, it is clear that RM is
at the forefront of marketing practice and research and an epitome of marketing .
To retain custo mers, interaction has become a common tool to provide value to
customers . Through easily accessible on line platforms and social media, the opportunities for
engaging with consumers are almost endless . With i nteractive co-production platforms, it is

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

12
also possible to co-create unique value together with consumers. This is an increasingly popular
research stream that encourage s stron ger customer relationships through co -creation of value
(Prahalad & Ramaswamy , 2000 , 2004 ; Vargo & Lusch , 2004 a, b).
The entire theory of RM is built on the concept of engendering brand loyalty, thus
solidifying CBR s. In other words, encourage stronger co mmitment , and relationships between
consumers and brands , and move beyond the traditional notion of simply generating one -time
transactions. RM is though not solely co ncerned with customer retention , but is more important
than customer acquisition (MAXIM , 2009). Cosic and Djuric (2010 ) noted that customer
loyalty now surpasses market share as a company performance indicator.
2.4 Consumer -Brand Relationships
The acknowledgement of relationship building as a brand success driver , contributed to
an increased attention among marketing scholars on CBR s. The CBR principle arose as a
natural consequence to the emerging concept of RM. Thus, it came to substitute the short -term
oriented approach concerning one -time transactions in the 1990’s (Fournier , 1998). In th e same
period, the academic interest in consumption for symbolic and psychological reasons increased .
This includes consumption of goods that helped consumers create, reinforce and express their
self-concept (Belk , 1988; Kleine , Iii, & Allen , 1995). Academi cs thus realised that brands were
a source of symbolic properties that could encourage self -brand connections between
consumers and brands , in situations where consumers could identify themselves with the brand
(Escalas & Bettman , 2005 .) Consequently, cons umers w ere considered to be identity seekers
and makers (Arnould & Thom pson, 2005).
Previous work verifies that CBR s improves brand loyalty (Park , Macinnis, & Priester,
2006), durability of brands (Ahluwalia , Burnkrant , & Unnava , 2000) and consumers inclination
to pay premium prices (Thomson , MacInnis , & Park, 2005). Besides, strong CBR s have proved
beneficial concerning the financial value of a compan y (Park et al ., 2006; Peelen , 2005 ).
Therefore, i t is also difficult to question the importance of having strong CBR s with consumers.
Deriving , it is clear why marketing scholars and managers are interested in buil ding and
maintaining strong CBR s. However, there is reasonable doubt to quest ion the appropriateness
of focu sing extensively on building CBR s with all customers . To investigate this, it is necessary
to improve the understanding of consumers’ interest in CBR s. Likewise, understand consumers’
reaction and response to brands attempts of encouraging consumers to form relationships .

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

13
Particularly the emot ional aspects related to brand relationships has been a central focus
area, in the attempt to identify the focal aspects of a strong brand relationship . In this context,
feelings of self -concept connection (Fournier, 1998), perceptions of closeness of the self to a
brand (emotional attachment) (Fournier, 1998), and feelings of love for a brand (brand love)
(Carroll & Ahuvia, 2006; Fournier, 1998) have been central research areas. Emotional aspects
have been found to improve relationship quality as emotional attachment often is reflected in
increased brand commitment (Thomson et al., 2005).
Susan Fournier’s (1998) seminal framework for understanding consumers’ motivation
of engagement and the nature of this engagement exists as a central research piece in l iterature
worthy of attention. Her brand relationship quality model (BRQ) considers multiple dimensions
of “relationship quality” within CBR s. Specifically, the model claims that relationship strength
is determined by seven different brand relationship qua lities. These include intimacy (physical
closeness), passionate attachment, love (brand feelings), self -concept -connection (brand
perception of the part of the self), personal commitment (brand loyalty), nostalgic connection
(connection to the consumer’s h istory and certain memories ), and partner quality and customer
care. Thus, the model extensively explains how relationships between brands and consumers
occur.
A later review of the model (Smit , Bronner , & Tolboom , 2007) suggested that
passionate attachme nt, love, self -connection and nostalgic attachment are emotional aspects of
brand relationships , whereas the remaining three are behavioural dimensions. Overall, the
model is widely accepted and acknowledged within the literature . Nonetheless , limitations have
been detected. Dowling (2002) argued that the BRQ model cannot be perceived as generic
framework suitable for all brands as brands ability to connect with consumers vary. Thus,
advises companies to adopt the model with caution.
Moreover, Fournier did, as several other authors within the field , consider psychological
self-brand connections as the primary driver of relationship quality (Fournier 1998; Park,
Macinnis, & P riester, 2009 ; Esca las & Bet tman, 2005). O’Guinn & Muñiz (2009) criticized this
majo r focus on psychological elements and the object -person dyads for being too narrow.
Bengtsson (2003) also identified problems with Fournier’s Br and relationship quality facets.
Particularly commitment, interdependence, love and passion , and intimacy as he argued that
brands do not have any real kind of reciprocity.

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

14
2.5 Defining Customer V alue
In the context of CBR s, RM, brand loyalty and satisfaction, it is inevitable to avoid the
concept of customer value. G rönross (1996) explains the centrality of custom er value in the
context of customer oriented marketing perfectly, when stating that “t he ability to provide
superior value to customers is a prerequisite when trying to establish and maintain long -term
customer relationships” (p. 19). Deriving, the paradig m shift from transactional to relationship –
based marketing has brought along the concept of customer value owing to the increasing
customer orientation. Thus, it has long been known that understanding, creating and managing
customer value is at the upmost essence for firms (Drucker, 1985; Porter, 1985, 1998; Slater &
Narver, 1998). It is regarded as one of the most determining factors of su ccess for companies’
(Woodruff, 1997; Zeithaml, 1988; Zeithaml, Berry , & Parasuraman , 1996) and identified as a
primary source for competitive advantage (Mizik & Jacobson, 2003; Woodruff, 1997).
Rendering the data presented (section 1.2; 1.3) , one could question if customer value is created
and managed by encouraging brand relationships with uninterested consumers.
Overal l, Vargo and Lusch (2004a) argues that two types of values exists, “exchange
value” and “value -in-use”. Exchange value refers to the value embedded in the product,
whereas value -in-use is the consumer’s perception and determination of value through
experie nce. Thus, value is co -created in the customer sphere, making it superior in marketing
today compared to the previous principle of value -in-exchange (Grö nross, 2006). Clearly, the
value -in-use principle opposes the traditional marketing dominant logic and the traditional
value -in-exchange view. The principle of letting the customer take part in the value creation is
unfamiliar to the previous notion of marketing. A term currently referred to as co -creation of
value. Academically and professionally this has been studied as a topic of interest in the latest
years and is emerging as an essential business, innovati on and marketing paradigm (Dijk,
Antonides , & Schillewaert , 2014; Grönroos, 2011; Matthing & Johansson, 2008; Vargo &
Lusch, 2004a,b; Prahalad & Rama swamy, 2000, 2004).
A reason for the emerging concept of co -creation of value probably is that the impact
of co -creation is not solely restricted to new ideas, concepts, designs, applications and market
ready solutions (Tanev , Knudsen , & Gerstlberger , 2009). Different academic studies have
revealed that co -creation leads to an increase in loyal ty towards the company (Sawhney,
Verona , & Prandelli , 2005), stronger customer relationships , higher levels of trust and support
towards brand image (Füller, 201 0), improved brand experience, added value for customers ,

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

15
and improved brand personality perceptions (Dijk et al., 2014). Thus, clearly emphasizing the
impact and importance of creatin g unique value for customers.
2.6 Market ing to a New G eneration
The busine ss environment has changed in connection with the digitaliz ation, the need
for engagement and the power change , causing a paradigm shift from transactional to
collaborative exchange (Fill , 2009 ). Consumers have shifted from passive spectators to active
problem solvers with the rise of the Millennials (Froom & Garton, 2013; Berelowith , 2013 ). A
generation positioned as the forerunners for the participation economy with their eagerness to
participate, co -create and engage with the brand, thus sharing the inte rest of its success .
Another general trend incorporated in all lifestyles involve their position as anywhere
consumers. The Millennials are constantly online, engaging in social networks, lifestreaming
and lifeblogging (Yankee Group Research, 2009). Hence , referred to as the connected
consumers, concerned with personal broadcasting and a high fear of missing out (FOMO) i.e.
a fear of missing an opportunity for interacting socially (Grehan, 2013; Cammorate, 2013).
Millennials are digital natives born into an era where digitally provided services are
everyday life. To capture their attention , the answer to one primary question must be
apprehended within the communication: “what is in it for me” (Kolvaleski, 2008). Bair (2008)
empathizes a similar notion by perceiving this generation as one with low patience and a desire
for personalization . Millennials have solid convictions and beliefs and are not opposed to
walking away if these are not met (Jones, 2007; Schmitt, 2008). Stil l, also willing to position
thems elves as brand advocates if seeing the possibiliti es for improved social status. This new
consumer generation is thus exceedingly troublesome to cope with as a by -product of the high
fragmentation and enhanced expectation level. A group expecting considera tion for their
claims, full information access and constant updates. They believe shopping should be an
experience, but simultaneously simple and convenient (Breuer, 2010).
Consequently, a radically different world has resulted in profoundly different
consumers. As a result, marketing philosophies and strategies have changed . Changes
imperative to keep up with the prevailing Millenials . Consequently, two-way interaction has
been vital for companies to approach to build stronger CBR s and generate brand loyal ty.
Deriving, todays marketing strategies are adapted to satisfy the needs of the Millennial
generation , who loves engagement and are willing to engage in brand relationships .

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

16
To a certain degree, it has been a necessity to adopt marketing strategies accor ding to
this generation’s need s, in the sense that they are undoubtedly the most powerful segment of
consumers’. Their p ower originates in their constant online connectivity and partic ipation i n
social networks, resulting in a significant larger outreach t han othe r consumers’. Thus, making
them potentially powerful brand advocates or brand adversaries . Besides, owing to the
increasing nature of the competitive environment , where switching ease has never been higher,
the current relational oriented marketing strategy has been nee ded to retain current customers,
who are increasingly disloyal (Section 1.1).
2.7 Customer Engagement, Commitment and I nvolvement
While Millennials typically characterises people between 18 -30 (Burstein , 2013),
everyone far from sha res this generations interest in brands and their willingness to engage and
form relationships with brands. R esults from a study conducted by CEB (2012 ), support this
proposition revealing that only 20 % of consumers are actually willing to engage in
relationships with brands (Spenner & Freeman , 2012). Subsequently, seeing consumers’
willingness to engage in CBR s as a myth . Engagement in brand relationship s is thus merely
perceived as a means of getting discounts, whereas relationships are reserved for friends, family
and colleagues. Consequently, Spenner & Freeman (2012) recommends companies to identify
those customers who want relationships and those who do not. Subsequently, make a clear
distinct ion between these two segments in order to market to their n eeds and expectations
differently. Thus, avoid bombardin g the average 80 % of consumers who do not want
relationships and relationship offers.
Customer engagement is regarded as a critical construct within literature . Consequently,
it has been treated in many closely related forms as “consumer engagement behaviours”,
“customer engagement”, “consumer engagement” and as simply “engagement” (Hollebeek
2011a). Particularly “customer brand engagement” has been applied as a well-used sub -form
of engagement , and is defined as “the level of an individual’s customer’s motivational, brand –
related and context -dependent state of mind characterized by specific levels of cognitive,
emotional and behavioural activity in direct brand interactions” (Holle beek 2011b). Thus,
directly relates to the interaction between a consumer and a brand. For the purpose of this
study , it is relevant to acquire a clearer picture of the connection between consumers’ level of
brand engagement and their motivation for engaging/interacting with brands. In this context,
investigate the degree to which consumers engage/interact with brands.

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

17
Brand engagement operates close to traditional marketing constructs as involvement,
commitment and loyalty. Bowden (2009) points out that engagement should be differentiated
from these relational concepts, leading to the following discussion of involvement and
commitment.
Consumers’ low level of interest in forming brand relationships (Section 1.2) , naturally
questions whether consumers correspondingly shows s ignificant ly lower levels of commitment
and involvement. Commitment and involvement are two variables that many researches
identify as sources of brand loyalty (2.8). Thus, relevant variables that provides an insight into
the level of intimacy consumers h ave with brands . Considering the purpose of understanding
consumers’ general interest in brands and brand relationships (Section 1.2), these will be key
variables to consider and investigate.
Involvement is usually considered as a char acteristic of a pr oduct. Therefore, most
research have been conducted in this context. Involvement is believed to reflect “a consumer’s
level of ongoing commitment in relation to thoughts, feelings and behavioural response to a
product category ” (Gordon, Mckeage & Fox, 1998 , p. 29). In other words, it is the perceived
personal relevance that determines the level of involvement. In this case , involvement will be
investigated in r elation to brands , not products . As highlighted by Aaker (1997), brands are
likely to be invo lving just as products. Consequently, measuring involvement with brands is
relevant , as supported by previous studies ( Kirmani, Sood , & Bridges , 1999). Measuring
involvement in relation to brands , compared to products , is most appropriate for the purpose of
this research study . It enable s the possibility to gain an insight into the extent to which
consumers are uninterested in brands and relational brand behaviour . Accordingly, this may
illuminate the CBR paradox and the potential implications of focussing on re lationship building
with uninterested consumers.
Commitment is an attitudinal construct that epitomises customers’ feelings towards
relationship s with brand s (Gordon , 2003 ). This means that committed customers wish to
maintain a relationship with a brand i.e. be a loyal customer. Relationship c ommitment is
popularly defined as an enduring desire to maintain a valued relationship (Morgan & Hunt,
1994 ). Thus, commitment is considered to be a key variable in the connection betwe en brands
and consumers (Bansal , Irving , & Taylor , 2004). Similarly, a cornerstone behind a successful
relationship and an indicator of long -term relationships (Morgan & Hunt , 1994).
Thus, it is hypothesized:

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

18
 H4: There is a significant relationship between the respondents low levels o f
involvement, commitment and engagement
And the three following research questions are raised:
 RQ1: Are consumers’ motivations for engaging with brands dependent on their level
of engagement?
 RQ2: Are consumers’ motivations for engaging with brands depend ent on their level
of involvement?
 RQ3: Are consumers’ motivations for engaging with brands dependent on their level
of commitment?
2.8 Interaction and Cognitive O verload
Corporate Executive Board ident ifies two additional marketing myths, including
intera ctions build relationships and more interaction is better (Spenner & Freeman , 2012 ). A
research clearly suggesting shared value as the greatest source of relationship building (64 %) .
Shared values is a belief that is held by both parties regarding the bra nds greater purpose or
philosophy . On the contrary, only 13 % considers frequent interactions as an incentive to brand
relatio nship (Spenner & Freeman , 2012) . High levels of engagement , from the side of the
company, is a poor source of relationship buildin g, according to consumers. Deriving, it will
be interesting to realise whether those consumer who does engage with brands tend to be brand
loyal. Knowing this could provide a better understanding of consumers’ behaviour and see the
connection between engag ed consumers and loyal consumers.
Regarding the third myth, more interaction is better , indication s suggests that constant
interaction only adds to the already overwhelming amount of information bombarding
consumer s every day . Ultimately, resulting in co gnitive overload causing an adverse effect on
consumers’ intentions to purchase, repurchase and recomm end a product or service (Spenner
& Freeman, 2012). The nature of the business sphere, with constant exposure to communication
material , has been a clear source for trends as brand immunization and brand allergies (Abber,
n.d.).
In summary, the key findin gs from CEB’s study suggests that the bombardment of
messages is not empowering, but overwhelming. As a result, consumers consider “decision
simplici ty” as the key variable for deciding whether to purchase, repurchase and /or recommend
a brand . Decision simplicity refers to the accessibility of trustworthy information regarding the
product. Information, which can be gathered and applied to evaluate the purcha se opportunities.

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

19
In other words, the ease of which consumers can go through the decision making process. The
impact of this is clear “What consumers want from marketers is, simply, simplicity” (Spenner
& Freeman , 2012).
Based on this, Spenner & Freeman ( 2012) concludes that “given the rapid expansion of
social and mobile technologies, marketers will have ever -increasing opportunities to bombard
consumers. And if history is any guide, that’s exactly what they’ll do. But in their aggressive
efforts to engag e with their customers, they’ll only make the decision journey more complex
and confusing. Marketers who focus on simplifying consumers’ decision making will rise above
the din, and their customers will stick by them as a result (8)”. In this way, emphasis ing the
problem of overwhelming uninterested consumers with information.
2.9 Understanding Brand L oyalty
Brand loyalty is a complex subject , imperative for companies to obtain . Particularly
now, in an era where focus is shifted from customer acquisitio n to customer retention (Section
2.3). Finding s show that in average the cost of gaining new customers are somewhere between
five to ten times more expensive than retaining already existing ones (Slater & Narver , 2000).
Thus, it is obvious why brand loyalty has gained increased interest.
Jacob y & Chestnut’s (1978) definition of brand loyalty as “a biased behavioural
response expressed over time by some decision making unit with respect to one or more
alternative brands out of a set of such brands” ( p. 80) is according to Fournier and Yao (1996)
one of the most well accepted definitions. Fournier (1998) though criticizes it for considering
brand loyalty a s a utilitarian decision making process.
Overall, the studies of brand loyalty have been divided between two distinct types of
loyalty, attitudinal and behavioural loyalty, perceived as equally important (Kumar & Shah ,
2006; Fullerton , 2005 ). Originally, loyalty was simply defined as the behaviour of the customer
i.e. in terms of repeat purchase ( Pong & Yee, 2001). However, marketers started to realise that
loyalty encompasses more than simple behavioural aspects, thus cannot simply be considered
as mere repurc hase behaviour (Dick & Basu, 1994 ). It has long been known that consumer
behaviour is sometimes determi ned by a lack of available alternatives, high switching cost or
inertia (Cooper & Withey , 1989). This means that attitude and emotions plays a significant part
in consumers decision making process. Accordingly , indicating that loyalty should be measured
in relation to consumers’ attitudes as well (Andreassen & Lindestad, 1998 ). As a result, loyalty

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

20
is usually measured by incorporating behavioural and attitudinal measures simultaneously
(Hallowell , 1996 ).
BBL simply refers to people’s willingness to repurc hase the same brand (Farr & Hollis ,
1997; Chaudhuri & Holbrook , 2001; Quester & Lim, 2003) . Therefore , BBL is unable to
explain the various buying situations wherein people’s personal motives and buying behaviour
is affected by their positive or negative a ttitudes (Aaker, 1991). Consequently, the need for
considering attitudinal loyalty exist. Attitudinal loyalty encompasses more than simple
repurchasing behaviour, including the degree to which a person commits to a brand (Zins , 2001;
Back & Parks , 2003; Qu ester & Lim, 2003 ). In other words, it comprises the cognitive elements
that drive consumers to re -purchase certain brands . The definition of brand loyalty is therefore
popularly defined as an outcome of the interplay between consumers’ attitude and repeat
purchase behaviour (Ogba & Tan, 2009).
Brand loyalty is a multi -dimensional construct found to have many sources. Most
notably, literature points to customer satisfaction and trust as key predictor s for brand loyalty
(Oliver, 1999; Delgad o-Ballester & Ma nuera -Aleman , 2001 ). Satisfaction is related to
consumers’ continuous satisfaction with the functions and performance of the brand (Reast,
2005) and is an attribute of both behavioural and attitudinal loyalty (Taylor, Celuch , &
Goodwin , 2004) . A study cond ucted by Lee and Lee (2013) additionally established a strong
correlation between customer satisfaction and loyalty . Besides , many studies have identified a
clear connection between customer satisfaction and purchase behaviour (Anderson & Sullivan ,
1993; B olton , 1998; Mittal & Kamakura , 2001 ). Consequently, making it clear that satisfaction
is a p ivotal source of brand loyalty, thus essential for a strong CBR.
Busacca and Castaldo (2003) suggest s that a consumer goes through two relationship
stages. In the first stage, loyalty originates in brand satisfaction. Hence, as the duration of the
relationship is extended, trust replaces satisfaction (Garbarino & Johnson, 1999). Trust is
presumed to enable consumers to understand the offering and the perceived risks of the entire
purchase (Be rry, 2000). A trustworthy brand will likewise acquire more loyal customers willing
to pay premium price . Furthermore, the brand will be more likely to sell other products in
different categories und er the same brand (Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001; Buscca & Castaldo,
2003). As a result, trust is at the core of a brand’s value provision and clearly one of the main
drivers of loyalty (Garb arino & Johnson, 1999; Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001; Berry, 2000;
Harris & Goode, 2004; Ballester & Aleman, 2005; Chiou, 2006; Mohammad, 2012).

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

21
However, fact is that literature has related BBL and ABL to a vast amount of influential
factors. Aside satisfaction and trust, the most prominent sources of brand loyalty remain brand
affect (Taylor et al., 2004; Matzler, Celuch , & Goodwin , 2008 ), brand love ( Fournier, 1998;
Chaudhuri & Holdbrook, 2001; Park et al., 2006 ), product involvement (Jacoby & Chestnut,
1978; Park, 1996 ), perceived value (Parasuraman & Grewal, 2000; Reichheld, 1996) and
commitment (Fournier, 1998; Bansal et al ., 2004 ). Besides, brand loyalty has often been
consider ed as a part of larger constructs. Fournier (1998) considered brand loyalty (personal
commitment) as one of seven brand relationship qualities that a ffects the relationship s trength .
A facet used as an indicator of relationship quality (Section 4.5 ). Similarly , Aaker (1996)
considered brand loyalty within the wider concept of brand equity identifying it as a main
source of brand equity.
This evidently displays that brand loya lty is treated as an extremely important subject
in literature. Yet, reality is that there is no recipe for loyalty . The posi tive outcome of a strong
CBR is difficult to argue against , as such, most academics agrees on the proposition that
customer retenti on is based on relationship formation . However, as the data suggest (Section
1.3), satisfying consumers and becoming trustworthy to the uninterested and sceptic consumers
nowadays are clearly problematic as few are open towards relationships.

The proper m ethod to build brand loyal ty is thus a n aspect worth further elaboration .
Establishing trust and ensuring satisfaction is a step in the right direction for any company .
Though no indications are made regarding relationship building as the best approach for
customer retention . In fact, it suggests that such an approach might instead encourage cognitive
overload and sim ply annoy consumers (Section 2.8 ). Considering the high correlation between
satisfaction and brand loyalty, mentioned earlier, a consumer expe riencing cognitive overload
and annoyance definitely is an obstacle to the objective of gaining brand loyalty.

Suggesting how to create loyalty is beyond this paper. However, focus will be to
investigate whether consumers indeed are interested in close r elationships with brands.
Deriving, commitment, engagement and involvement has been pinpointed as central elements
strongly related to a consumer’s interest in brands and brand relationships. A committed,
involved and engaged customer is presumed more pron e to be loyal . The connection between
engagement, involvement, commitment and loyalty will be investigated while consumers
general level of brand loyalty will be assessed . Most importantly, an understanding of

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

22
consumers overall level of engagement, commitm ent and involvement must be acquired .
Elements providing great indications for peoples interest in relational behaviour with brands.
Overall , this leads to the following hypothesi s:
 H5:Involvement, engagement and commitment are joint predictors of the le vel of
brand loyalty
2.10 Critique of Relationship M arketing and Consumer -Brand Relationships
For more than half a century, marketers have accepted that brands carry meaning beyond
the physical functional characteristics . Gardener and Levy ( 1955) indicated this in their seminal
article. Rese arch have similarly demonstrated that brands have an identity (Aaker , 1996; De
Chernatony , 1999 ), personalit y (Aaker , 1997; Durgee , 1988 ) and charisma (Smothers , 1993).
Thus giving marketers the opportunity to exploit th at brands hold symbolic meanings through
which the consumer can express themselves ( Slater , 1997). By this logic, consumers can use
brands as a tool of differentiation to distinguish themselves from other consume rs.
As brands have come to possess this mean ing, the definition of a connection between a
consumer and a brand were metaphorically described as similar to an interpersonal relation.
Thus, CBR s has often been perceived as akin to interpersonal relationships e.g. the relationship
between a husband and wife. The metaphor has bee n useful for illuminating the positive
characteristics of having relationships with consumers and the new long -term exchange
principle (Houston & Gassenheimer, 1987 ).
Nevertheless, it is problematic that people seem to have forgotten that it in fact merely
is a metaphor . Consequently, researchers have treated relationships as if they were indeed
interpersonal relationships (Bengtsson, 2003). Bengtsson further stresses that brands lack
essential attributes that are characteristic for human relationships as a brand is unable to a ct and
react as consumers. Aggarval (2004) also pointed out that because there exists “obvious
differences between social relationships and CBR s” (p. 89) , it is important for researchers not
to overextend th e relationship metaphor when studying consumer beh aviour. Thus, there are
scepticism regarding the perception of CBRs as relationships with high emotional attachment
and commit ment .
In 1998, Fournier et al. pointed to several issues with RM. In essence, it was highlighted
that if RM continued to be practiced as it currently were, it would face a premature death. At
the time, the authors had realised that “ relationships between compa nies and consumers are
troubled at best. When we talk to people about thei r lives as consumers, we do not hear praise

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

23
for their so-called corporate partners. Instead, we hear about the confusing, stressful,
insensitive, and manipulative marketplace in which they feel trapped and victimized ” (Fournier
et al. , 1998, p. 42). Here, stressing that marketers might have forgotten that a relationship
requir es two parties to exist and taken it for granted that consumers willingly wants to engage
in relationships. Seeing it from a customer’s point of view, they explain that information can
easily seem trivial and useless. Likewise, people have literally hundreds of interpersonal
relationships, but arguably only a few strong. Deriving, when every company ask for strong
relationships, it is unrealistic to believe that consumers are natur ally interested (Fournier et al.,
1998 )
Reflecting, it su ggests that the metaphor of CBR s being similar to interpersonal
relationships may have been stretched too far. Thus, suggesting that the current marketing
philosophy may have been too narrowly f ocused on building strong CBRs. Moreover , RM may
indeed contribute to a manipulative marketplace with a vast amount of relationship requests. A
marketplace that certainly only has become more crowded with marketing messages and ROs
since Fournier et al., (1998) not ed this. Ultimately, it is though the consumers’ opinion that
matters. Consumers determine the degree to which brands have meaning for them. Grönross
(2006) alleged that a “customer often do not want to be engaged in something they would define
as a relati onship with the firm” ( p. 408). Thus, implicitly telling that there might be a need to
understand how consumers define a CBR. Thus, this will be explored. In this context, the
purpose is to investigate what consumers understand by a CBR as this might revea l important
information regarding their interest in relational behaviour with brands.

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

24
3. Research Methodology
After the thorough literature review, where extensive knowledge regarding the subject
matter where acquired, a methodological chapter will follow. A methodological section of a
dissertation is an instrumental part of a study, aiming to provide a clear portrayal of the research
choices .
3.1 Methodol ogical P aradigms
To provide an overview of the research format , the choice of methodological paradigms
will be outlined. This entails the research purpose , sampling method , reasoning method , data
collection methods and collection of primary and secondary data. Afterwards, specific
considerations and preparations, made prior to the analysis of the quantitative and qualitative
data respectively, will be outlined.
3.1.1 Purpose of R esearch
To clarify the research approach, the objective of the study must be considered. The aim
of this study is “to explore consumers’ interest in relational behaviour w ith brands and
elucidate how this (dis)connects with a relationship oriented marketing philosophy”
(Section 1.3). Richey and Klein (2007) explain that three diverse approaches to research can b e
undertaken: explorato ry, explanatory and descriptive. However , a study is not necessarily
limited to one purpose . Multiple research purposes can exist within one study (Sue & Ritter,
2007 ). In fact, this study encompass es all three research purposes to varying degrees.
Considering the research objective , a mixture of descriptive, exploratory and
explanatory approach es were applied . Firstly, the interviews explores the curious paradox
between the current RM approach and customers’ interest in relationships , by investigating and
understanding how consumers view and re late to brands. Furthermore, attempts to explore how
interested consumers are in relational behaviour with brands and their reactions to relationship
offers. This is as mentioned earlier a rather unexplored theme in the marketing literature .
Consequently, a further exploration is a necessity to understand the study under investigation.
Nonetheless, while the interviews are explorative of nature, they fulfil two roles. First ly,
they act as an exploration into the subject providing knowledge to the area of investigation .
Thus, offer vital information to the development of the questionnaire together with aspects
relevant to perform additional research. Secondly, they are applied to support the quantitative
findings to strengthen the research results (Appendix 1).

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

25
The descriptive approach of this study is reflected in the extensive literature review. The
descr iptive nature of the literature review act as a pre cursor to explanations. Deriving, the
descriptive part of the study is implemented as a means to an en d, as recommended by Saunders
(Saunders , 2009). The descriptive part is thus the backbone of this study, providing a clear
portrayal of the relating subjects to the problem. Finally, the study aims to move beyond simp le
description with an explanatory appr oach that intends to explain the paradox between the focus
on relationships within RM and consumers’ lack of interest in relationships with brands .
3.1.2 Data C ollection Method
Qualitative and quantitative data collection techniques are both highly approp riate.
Thus, the choice of research technique depends on the goal of the research project (Shields &
Rangarajan , 2013). In this case, the primary objective includes acquiring a deep understanding
of consumers’ intere st in relationships with brands. To attain this knowledge , qualitative studies
must firstly be conducted in form of interview s. These interviews provides great value to the
research design by exploring the study’s theme and contributing to the development of the
questionnaire. However, qualitati ve data provides no basis for generalizations . Accordingly,
quantitative research has been conducted to improve the trustworthiness and reliability of the
study. Quantitative research is known to increase the efficiency of qualitative research
(McDaniel & Gates , 2002 ). This multi -method data -collection technique provides analytical
texture to the research design , weigh up the well argued deficiencies of quantitative and
qualitative approaches respectively and exists as an opportunity to strengthen the analy tical
findings (Miles, Huberman , & Saldaña , 2014 ).
3.1.3 Reasoning Method
The reasoning method applied for the research will be deductive of nature. This shows
itself, as the starting -point for this study is a research problem and theoretical structure,
followed by data collection and ultimately analysis. Thus, it moves “toward the development
of a logical explanation or theory and next gathers evidence to test the theory” (Remler & Van
Ryzin , 2011 , p. 17). On the contrary, an inductive approach starts wit h observations and
analyses before finally deve loping a theory or explanation (Shields & Rangarajan , 2013).
3.1.4 Sampling M ethod
The selection of research participants is referred to as the sampling method. Generally,
the key focus in sampling is represe ntativeness i.e. that the selected respondents is

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

26
representative of the po pulation under investigation (Terre , Durrheim , & Painter , 2006). This is
particularly important in quantitative research as these are the foundation for generalizations .
A sample ca n be selected through either a non -probabilistic or a probabil istic method .
In probabilistic sampling, the respondents have a known, often equal, chance of selection. Thus,
a perfect way to collect a representative sample , wherefrom valid inference s can be made .
However, while this is a great strength, a probabilistic sample is only possible in cases where
an accurate sampling frame is ava ilable (Gerrish & Lacey , 2010). Therefore , this was not an
option as all Danes aged between 15-69 are the target populat ion, for which a sampling frame
could not be found or made. This age-group make up the working population and the “young”
senior citizens. It is naturally relevant to focus on the working population. They are most likely
to have money and those who will be important consumers in the future . However, since the
old generation today is a large percentage of all people within the population, it was deemed
relevant to include the young part of the old generation i.e. the 63 -69 year old people.
Due to the imposs ibility of obtaining a sample frame , a non -probabilistic sampling
technique have been selected, even though this technique may result in bias. However, as
Gerrish & Lacey (2010) states “the alternative of not undertaking the research because a
sampling fra me is not available may impoverish our knowledge about important groups of
people … where a register does not exist ” (p. 144). Furthermore, non -probability samples are
less exp ensive, less time consuming, convenient to apply and often more appropriate in ca ses
where no sampling frame or list exists (Lowe, Ward , Winzar , & Zikmund , 2007) .
For the quantitative questionnaire , a quota sampling technique was undertaken . This
type of non-probability sampling ensures that various subgroups of people within the
popul ation are represented in the sample. This improves the likelihood that the sample is
representative for the target population of 15 -69 year -old Danes. Therefore, t he population was
divided into quotas, defined by age, gender , education and income . These ar e common variables
to consider and variables that are likely to have a significant impact on consumer behaviour
(Black , 2014) , thus relevant variables to consider for the purpose of this study. Particularly
differences in gender are known to create bias as men and women relate differently to brands
(Fournier , 1998).
For the interviews, a purposeful /judgmental sampling was used. This technique was use
to select a variety of relevant respondents . A selection based on the quotas identified for the
questionna ire. This resulted in a variety of respondents in terms of income, age, education and

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

27
salary, thus similar to the variety of the sample gathered for the questionnaire (Appendix 2) .
This method is unarguably prone to bias, nevertheless regarded as a necessi ty (Section 5.5).
3.1.5 Primary and Secondary D ata
Secondary data ha ve been the starting point for th is project. Churchill explains that
secondary data is cheaper and less time consuming than primary data. Subsequently, states that
“a good marketing resea rch study should always start with secondary data” ( p. 142). In addition,
a literature review is pivotal for the quality of a good research project ( Pender, 1999; Bell,
2010 ). In this study , only external se condary data ha ve been collected in form of the l iterature
review. A literature review is helpful in forming a solid theoretical foundation, but further
empirical analyses have to be made. Primary data have therefore also been collected through a
questionnaire and interview . Contrary to secondary data, p rimary data are fresh data collected
for a specific research problem (Kothari , 2004).
3.1.6 Sample Size
Another concern in quantitative studies is the sample size. The sample must be of a
certain size for any inferences to be valid for the population. Th erefore, a general goal for
quantitative studies is to “include as many sources as possible that add to the richness, depth,
and variety of the data” (Macnee & McCabe , 2008, p. 133). However, as Mooi and Sarstedt
(2011) points out, the size of a sample is n ot necessarily strongly connected to the population
size. The authors state that a relatively small sample of e.g. 100 people can provide a similar
level of accuracy independent of whether the population size is 300 or 100.000 . For that reason ,
the goal is not simp ly to gather a large sample but more importantly to select the sample
accurately ( Mooi & Sarstedt , 2011 ). As such, great care has been given to accurately follow the
quotas determined by the non-probability quota sampling method (Section 3.2 .1).
Consequently, the aim is to include a net sample size of 270 participants for the questionnaire .
This number is realistic with the resources available, and large enough to yield reliable results,
considering the high focus on sample accuracy. Consequently, regarded as an appropriate
number for the purpose of this study.
Contradictory to a questionnaire , an interview has different objective s in terms of
generalizability. Nonetheless , the size of the sample is not irrelevant. According to Pitney &
Parker (2009), the sample size should be guided by data saturation, “the point at which you no
longer encounter new information, or continually encounter the same information” ( p. 44). To
identify data saturation a researcher must conduct interviews until discovering redundancy of

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

28
data. To reduce the number of interviews, thus limit the extensive resources needed for
conducting and transcribing interviews, the focal attention of each interview will be quality.
The higher the quality of data obtained from each intervie w, the earlier data saturation will
occur, thus reducing the number of interviews necessary (Pitney & Parker , 2009 ). Redundancy
of data was encountered after nine interviews, thus is the total number of conducted interviews.
3.2 Methodological Choices for Analysis of Quantitative D ata
3.2.1 Planning Quota S ampl ing
To accurately identify the number of respo ndents needed within each quota, statistics
about the population were first ly collected (Appendix 3; 4; 5). Then, calculations were made to
identify t he number of respondents needed within each quota in the sample (Appendix 2 ). To
acquire these numbers , the number of people within the population in each category e.g. male,
were divided with the total population within the overall category . Subsequently, multiplied
with 100. This results in the percentage of people, in each category, within the total population.
This is then used to identify the same percentage within the selected sample size of 270. By
following these quotas , it ensures that an equal propor tion to that of the general population is
present in the sample within the selected categories.
3.2.2 Measurements of variables
Proper measurement is vital for any research project and a critical component in
quantitative settings. According to Turk (2011 ), “measurement refers to grouping objects
according to their score on a measurement scale” (p. 57) However , the degree of difficulty
associated with measurement varies significantly. In cases where p eople’s feelings, attitudes
and perceptions are measured , the complexity increases as these variables are intangible . This
questionnaire contains few tangible variables e.g. demographic questions that are
straightforwardly measured with simple questions. On the contrary , several intangible variables
are part of the questionnaire, hence must be conceptualized and operationalized to ensure
appropriate measurement of the construct s.
3.2.3 Conceptualization and O perationalization
To properly implement the theory under investigation , pre-tested and validated scales
have been adapted to build the questionnaire . Deriving, a selected number of items from prior
studies have been carefully selected and adapted. Thus, make up a reliable measurement scale
for the purpose of this study. A number of indications i.e. items ar e typical ly necessary for the

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

29
measurement of concepts. Turk (2011) argue that a minimum of three items must be applied
for the measurement of one variable to uphold reliability.
In total, the questionnaire instrument includes 34 items that measure seven constructs:
commitment, involvement, engagement, brand loyalt y, BBL , ABL and ITR a brand . Three to
seven items measure the constructs, a difference explained by the varying complexity of the
variables . The collection of these items operationalizes each paradigm , as these must be
conceptualised before being measured (Turk, 2011) . Accordingly, a review of past studies has
led to appropriate definitions i.e. conceptualisation of each construct under measurement.
3.2.4 Questionnaire Instrument
Table 1 gives an overvie w of the conceptual definition, operationalizing items i.e.
specific questions and the source wherefrom the items have been adapted. Moreover , it displays
the reliability of each construct , according to Cronbach’s Alpha. This reliability and validity
test “asses the goodness of scale” (Turk, 2011, p. 65). Different researchers argue for different
minimum requirements. A level of 0.60 is the minimum requirement, but may be considered
poor, near 0.70 is acceptable whereas more than 0.80 is good (Nunnally, 1994; Sekaran, 1996;
Melewar & Saunders, 1999 ). Obtained values for the current study are presented in section
4.3.1.2. , but visible in the instrument. Thus, the questionnaire instrument provides a complete
framework for the measurement scale s, while simultaneously displaying their validity.
Table 1 – questionnaire instrument with conceptual definition, op erationalizing and a lpha coefficients.
Concept : Conceptual
Definition : Operationalizing Items and S ource : Alpha
values
Behavioural
brand loyalty People’s
willingness to
repurchase the
same brand
(Chaudhuri &
Holbrook, 2001). 1. I would intend to do more
business with the brand
2. I would intend to do less business
with the brand
3. I would not switch to a competitor,
even if I have a problem with the
services I received
(Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001; Foster &
Cadogan, 2000). ,536 –
,690
Attitudinal
brand loyalty More than simple
repurchasing
behaviour ,
including the
cognitive
elements that
drive consumers
to re -buy and
commit to certain 4. I would be more likely to consider
their products my first choice
when evaluating related products
5. I would stay loyal to the brand, as
long as they stick to their promises
6. In the futur e, I would be willing to
pay a higher price for products
from the brand over competitive
offerings. ,686 –
,843

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

30
brands (Zins,
2001; Back &
Parks , 2003;
Quester & Lim,
2003) 7. I would commit myself stronger to
this brand
(Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001; Taylor et
al., 2004; Halim, 2006 ).
Intentions to
recommend a
brand A consumer’s
intention to
spread positive
word -of-mouth
about a brand to
others (Zeithaml
et al., 1996). 8. I would be likely to say positive
things about the brand to other
people .
9. I would be likely to recommend
the brand to someone who seeks
my advice .
10. I would be likely to encourage
others to do business with the
brand .
11. I would be likely to post positive
messages about the brand on
some internet board .
(Zeithaml et al., 1996 ; Foster & Cadogan,
2000). ,866 –
,923
Involvement A consumer’s
level of ongoi ng
commitment in
relation to
thoughts, feelings
and behavioural
response (Gordon
et al. , 1998). 12. In general, I have a strong interest
in brands
13. Brands are very important to me
14. Brands matters a lot to me
15. I get bored when other people talk
to me about brands
16. Brands are relevant to me
17. For me, brands does NOT matter
in general
(Beatty & Talpade, 1994; Mittal & Lee,
1989) ,901
Commitment An enduring
desire to maintain
a valued
relationship
(Morgan & Hunt,
1994). 18. I am very loyal to brands I like
19. I am willing to make small
sacrifices in order to keep using
the product of a brand I like
20. I would be willing to postpone my
purchase if a product I like was
temporarily unavailable
21. I would stick with a brand I like,
even if it would let me down once
or twice
(Aaker, J. , Fournier, S., & Brasel, S. A,
2004 ).
,815
Engagement The level of an
individual
customer’s
motivational,
brand -related and
context –
dependent state of 22. I really like to talk about brands I
like with others
23. I am always interested in learning
more about brands I like.
24. I would be interested in
merchandise with a brand’s name I
like on it. ,894

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

31
mind ,
characterized by
specific levels of
cognitive,
emotional and
behavioural
activity in direct
brand interactions
(Hollebeek ,
2011b). 25. I am proud to have others know I
use a brand I like.
26. I like to visit the website for a
brand I like.
27. Compared to other people, I
closely follow news about brands I
like.
(Keller , 2001).

Brand loyalty “A deep held
commitment to
rebuy or
repatronize a
preferred
product/service
consistently in the
future, thereby
causing repetitive
same -brand or
same brand -set
purchasing,
despite situational
influences and
marketing efforts
having the
potential to cause
switching
behaviour ”
(Oliver, 1999, p.
34). 28. I always consider the brand befo re
I buy a product
29. If I feel that a brand is good, I
could see myself buy other
products from the same company
30. It is important that I feel a strong
relationship to a brand
31. If I were satisfied with a brand, I
would buy from the same
company in the near futu re again
32. I will stay loyal to a brand, as long
as they stick to their promises
33. If I were satisfied with a brand, I
would say positive things about
the brand to others
34. Commercials regarding competing
brands are NOT able to reduce my
interest in buying a bra nd I like.
(Oliver, 1999; Algesheimer, Dholakia, &
Herrmann, 2005; Sahin, Zehir, & Kitapci,
2011 ). ,746
Source: self -constructed

3.2.5 Type of Questionnaire and Administration M ethods
A pilot study must be conducted prior to the intended study (Blessing & Chakr abarti,
2009). Firstly, a colleague was asked to review the questionnaire before a pilot study including
20 respondents were launched . Following the recommendation s of Blessing & Chakrabarti
(2009), each participant was asked to provid e feedback on their experiences and approach the
questionnaire with a critical attitude . Subsequently , several changes were made including using
easier and more commonly known language, re -framing of three statements and clarification of
two main questions.
Respondent s were firstly collected via the web. However, web surveys, while fast and
low cost, are prone to be biased by factors as income, race, gender and age (Mooi & Sarstedt ,
2011 ). During the data -collection process, this depicted itself as certain quotas were filled faster

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

32
than others. The first quota to be complete, were the age -group of 15 -29. Previous calculations
had determined that this quota should consist of 72 respondents (Appendix 2). When 230
responses were collected, 72 of those respondents were with in the age -group of 15 -29.
However, to fulfil the objective of a sample size of 270, additional 40 respondents had to be
found. Moreo ver, these respondents had to fit into one of the remaining quotas that yet were to
be full.
Consequently , these 40 respon dents were collected through quantitative face-to-face
standardised interviews. The participants were approached in geographically different
populated areas, malls and streets. When approached, each participant were asked initial
screening questions regard ing age, income and education level. This ensured that the
approached participants could be put within on e of the remaining quotas. This type of face-to-
face interviews , where respon dents fill out the questionnaire next to the researchers , are quite
time-costly. However, considering that only 40 respondents had to be approached , this
drawback was limited significantly.
Owing to the translation from English to Danish, following a completely similar
framing, structure and wording was impossible. Nevertheless , by following the original
sentence structure and format closely, negations were avoided. Furthermore, by avoiding slang
and jargon, double negative sentences, vague quantifiers, suggesting answers and double –
barrelled questions, the risk of validity and reliability issues were minimised. T o improve
people’s willingness and ability to complete the questionnaire , it was kept relatively short and
only closed -ended questions were included . The advantage of flexibility and explanation
associated with open -ende d questions will be acquired through the interviews (Mooi & Sarstedt ,
2011).
The scale type consists of a five -point Likert scale with anchors (1) completely agree;
(2) agree; (3) neutral; (4) disagree ; and (5) completely disagree . 7-point L ikert scales can be
confusing to respo ndents, considering the minor difference between the answer options.
Admittedly, it though does provide greater opportunities for response variation , however
similarly increase s the length and difficulty of the questionnaire (Mooi & Sarstedt , 2011). Most
importan tly, five-point L ikert scale s have been used in studies including similar behavioural
variables as the ones measured in this study (Mittal & Lee, 1989 ; Beatty & Talpade , 1994 ). In
addition, one rank -order scale has been adop ted to acquire more balanced responses. “Neutral”

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

33
is provided as an option to circumvent bias and reliability issues (Mooi & Sarstedt, 2011 ). The
complete questionnaire can be found in Appendix 6.
3.4 Methodological Choices for Analysis of Qualitative D ata
3.4.1 Interview Approach
An interview aims at collecting ample information and thoroughly explore an issue
(Cousin, 2009). Thus, perfect for illuminating the complex matter of consumers’ attitudes
towards brands and ROs. An interview should last between 30 min and two hours (Wiid &
Diggins, 92). The average time for the nine interviews w ere 36.24 minutes.
There are three basic interview approaches. Each approach differs in relation to the
degree of detail the interview questions are prepared, prior to t he actual interview (Cousin,
2009). A semi -structured approach was selected in preference to an unstructured or structured
interview method. This approach avoids standardized answer, nonetheless ensures
comparability. To conduct the interviews, an intervie w guide with pre -determined questions
was developed prior to the interview (Appendix 8 ). Thus , ensuring that each respondent gets
similar questions, nonetheless leaving room for the pursuit of any relevant subject areas that
may arise during an interview. Hereby, a mutually comfortable and positive conversation
should be established to embrace validity.
3.4.2 Presentation of I ntervi ew P articipants
Table 2 provides a short description of the interview participants. Thus, demonstrating
the selection of a v ariety of respondents, within variables used for the quota -sample in the
questionnaire (Section 3.1.4)
Table 2 – Presentation of interview participants
Gender Age Occupation Income Education
Morten Male 26 Multimedia
designer Medi um Long
Kristina Female 22 Hairdresser Low Short
Peter Male 29 Insurance
sales
representative High Short
Mette Female 18 Student Low Short
Anja Female 31 Teacher Low Medium
Maiken Female 49 Self-
employed Medium Long
Knud Male 63 Carpenter Mediu m Medium
Maria Female 54 Fashion
designer High Medium
Brian Male 38 Lawyer High Long
Source: self -constructed

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

34
3.4.3 Transcription
All in terviews were recorded with a dictaphone to ensure that full attention were given
to the research participants du ring the interview. They were conducted in the respondent’s
native language before being transcribed and translated directly into written text. All question s
and statements made by the interviewer and interviewee were transcribed to provide the exact
context of the interaction to improve the level of sense -making. However, paralanguage have
been omitted from the interview transcripts, as assessing its meaning would only add confusion,
subjectivity and bias to the qualitative data analysis (Murchison, 2010) . The interpretation of
paralanguage is highly subjective, particularly for an unexperienced researcher. Moreover,
when transcribing an oral conversation in one language to written text in another language , it is
impossible to make a completely accurate tr anscript. Linguistic nuances and slang often cannot
be translated directly to another language.
The researcher is though fully aware that “adequacy and accuracy of translation in cross –
cultural communication is paramount for conducting research with human subjects in any
methodological tradition, across all disciplines and paradigms” (Shklarov , 2007, p. 529).
Consequently, all doubts and unclear aspects in the interview were revised with the individual
respondents who were given the original part of the tr anscript, in need of clarification. Hence,
asked to clarify the specific section.

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

35
4. Empirical R esearch
4.1 Quantitative and Q ualita tive R esearch
By now, the theoretical foundation for this dissertation has extensively been reviewed
and discussed . To progress from this foundation, the research objectives will be met and
hypotheses tested. The in -depth interviews will be presented qualitatively on the basis of simple
content analyses. Conversely, data collected through the questionnaire will be ana lysed
statistically with SPSS . Firstly, descriptive exploratory analyse s will be used to provide an
initial insight before inferential statistics will be applied to statistically test the research
hypotheses.
4.2 Qualitative S tudy
4.2.1Qualitative Analys is of I nterviews
The following chapter will e valuat e the research findings according to Bloom’s (1956)
taxonomy of learning. The data will thus be described, discussed/analysed, synthesised with
reference to the literature review and evaluated. The evaluat ion itself will though appear in the
concluding chapter, wherein the qualitative findings will be correlated with the quantitative
findings. Each research objective form a section of analysis, thus constitute as the structure for
the analyses. The transcri pt for each inter view can be found in appendix 9.
4.2.2 RO1: Explore consumers’ interest in relational behaviour with brands, and
uncover their responses to relationship offerings from brands .
A thorough exploration into the respond ents opinion and reacti on to RO s, will likewise
elucidate the respondents interest in relational behaviour with brands. A further exploration of
their interest in relational behaviour with brands will be acquired in section 4.2.3 and 4.2.4.
There are many commonalities in the re spondent’s interest in relational behaviour , and reaction
to RO s. Respondents display a noteworthy lack of interest in RO s and negative opinions
towards them. Common explanation s includes a preference to seek out the information
themselves , a bombardment o f marketing messages and the reception of unrequested
information. An excerpt of quotes display these feelings well:
 “Oh, I really hate these things ( ROs). I just want to be able to make my own choices
and not be told what to do. If I am interested in inf ormation from a brand, and for
instance is looking for a membership card, I will seek that information out on my own…
I am just not interested in receiving all this information” . – Kristina

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

36
 “Often it just get s too much because you are bombarded with it…. Therefore, I also
think that I get quite easy annoyed by these marketing bombardments ”. – Maria
 “Newsletters, to take that, I believe is something invented by the devil. I always want
to seek out the information that I need directly at the source e.g. on t heir own website.
I try to avoid any information from brands actually. If I like a brand, I go check for
myself if there is something new and interesting for me to know about. The mentality of
throwing information in the heads of consumers I really do not like” .- Morten
 “Companies today try too hard to get your attention. But what they do not realise is
that half of the information they sent out is irrelevant for the receiver and result in
annoyance instead of gratitude” . – Maiken
 “I definitely notices it a nd it definitely annoys me. You know, we live in a world where
it is so easy to send information to people, whether they want that information or not.
The problem is that when it is easy for everyone to send, it means that I as a consumer
receive tons and tons of information” . – Knud
 “I would like to add that it really depends on the situation and the way brands handle
it. I know I often give my permission to receive things from brands, but in many cases
I just receive so much more than I was expecting… The y always tell you that they will
only send "relevant" news or special offers, but I actually often feel that I receive things
so often that it feels ki nd of inconvenient and annoying ”. – Peter
Brian, the respondent who actually displayed the greatest leve l of interest in brands,
even said “I do not want to receive tons of offers from brands that I am not really interested in
and have not asked to receive anything from”. He though explains his interest in offers from
brands that he like “Often I like to rec eive stuff from brands I like and am loyal to and I guess
I am also one of those that often “fall” for the offers because I often see it as an opportunity to
save money”. Nonetheless, he follows it with a particularly interesting and telling analogy “how
can I put it? You know how you sometimes have a good friend or a girlfriend. You might like
or love the person, but it does not necessarily mean that you want to talk to the person every
day, and other times you might feel that the person is simply just tal king too much. We all need
space, even from the things we like and are interested in”.
Brian’s analogy is strongly connected to elements pointed out by other respondents wh o
mentions the quantity of RO s as an essential aspect. An excess amount of informat ion is
perceived as a source of irritation . Respondents though acknowledge that if t he amount of
information and RO s correspond with their expectations, or if the information is well -targeted

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

37
and relevant for them, the effects can be positive. Even so, whe n asked directly if it positively
affects their intentions to purchase, their brand loyalty and/or their ITR, it is evident that it is
primarily consumers BBL that is effected i.e. not their attitude towards the brand or ITR the
brand.
Only Brian and Pete r sticks out. Both believe that RO s can affect their BBL and ABL .
Brian explains “ Surely it can drive me closer to the brand because I am regularly reminded
about a brand and their products” and “ my intentions to purchase can increase when I receive
things from brands that I like or when I am a member of some loyalty program ”. Consequently
suggesting a positive impact on his ABL as well as BBL. Nevertheless, Brian would not have
higher ITR a brand ” I will not recommend brands just because I have received in formation
from brands. I recommend brands on the basis of my own experience with their products, I
don’t just recommend brand because some brands sends me information about how great they
are” . Peter states “my intentions to purchase or repurchase could bo th be affected negatively
and positive. I do not know if I could say that I am more inclined to be affected positively or
negatively, but both things could easily happen, dependent on the situation”. Further, gives the
example that “if they only send one p er months, and that is what I expect, I would surely also
be affected positively” . – Peter
While oth er respondents likewise mention a potential positive effect, this affect does
not seem to impact BBL, ABL or ITR a brand. Primarily, the positive elements j ust encompass
the opportunity to exploit a great offer and save money.
 “I think that overall, I would only have intentions to purchase or repurchase a brand if
e.g. a newsletter or similar offered me a great discounts. But these relationship offerings
would not make me want to have, or give me the feeling that I have, a relationship to
the brand and therefore like that brand more ”. – Maria
 “I think that it has a subconscious influence, but it is not that often that these things can
result in a purchase or repurchase. However, a few select times it may have a positive
effect ”. – Mette
 “The implications can also be positive, e.g. if I say yes to receive something from a
brand that interest me e.g. Änglemark, then I can be happy about receiving information
from them. Later in the conversation adding “The only positive outcome may be that I
buy a great offer once a while ”. – Anja

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

38
 “My intention to purchase or repurchase a product is based on previous experience
with the product or the price. I do not believe tha t relationships offering affects that. A
loyalty program may cause me to try a new product because I can get it cheaper, but I
will not purchase it again or be loyal to the brand if I do not like the product or do not
find the brand interesting“ .– Maiken
While the above sugge sts that the implications of RO s can be positive in certain cases,
the implications can certainly be negative. Annoying, overwhelming and irritating are
commonly used words to describe the respondent’s negative reactions. In this regar d, several
respondents mentions that online information as e -mails/newsletters would lead them to block
future information. However, define this as the ultimate implication , thus saying that it would
not affect their attitudes towards the bra nds. While the re are plent y of examples describing the
respondent’s annoyance towards ROs, focus will instead be on the implications of these
negative feelings. Particularly, understand whethe r the negative perception of RO s may extend
to impact their BBL, ABL and ITR a brand. Five of the nine respondents explain that RO s are
capable of affecting their BBL and ABL at some point.
 “I will be irritated and annoyed which can mean that I will be likely to have a negative
attitude tow ards the brands that bombard me with infor mation and offers”. – Kristina.
Kristina further states that “I will not be likely to buy from or rebuy from a brand that
overwhelms me with offers and information ” and that it would likewise affect her level
of brand loyalty and make it highly unlikely fo r her to recommend the brand.
 “My first action would simply be to block the information that I receive. I could still buy
that product at another time, but of course, my attitude towards that brand would
definitely not be as good as it was before. So I wo uld most likely need more incentive to
buy the brand in the future” . – Anja
 “Companies that try too hard and send out too much information and tries to “catch”
their customers seems untrustworthy. Particularly if they exaggerate it”… “I would
definitely sa y that because of these relationship offerings I today clearly have come to
have a negative view of Bilka’s (Supermarket chain) brand” . – Morten
 “It would slowly drive me away and at some point, it would simply annoy me so much
that I would start looking f or other brands, even though I in every way actually like this
brand and their product” . – Peter

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

39
A great example is provided by Knud , who explains his search for new running shoes.
Knud had , by choice, accepted to receive Nike’s newsletter a while back owi ng to several good
experience s. Knud searched the internet and ended up with two pair of shoes, one from Adidas
and one from Nike. He clarifies his decision making process ”I couldn’t really make a decision
but then I opened to check my e -mail which I hadn ’t had time to check the entire weekend and
then had 3, yes 3 e -mails in there from Nike. I was like, seriously, come on! I was already
annoyed because they had been sending me 3 times a week or so, but that was “the drop that
made the difference”. I delet ed the e -mails, found a way to unsubscribe from Nike and put the
Adidas shoes on my wishlist ”. – Knud (Full example, Appendix 9).
A few respondents are somewhere in -between the above example s, seeing neither a
potential positive or negative impact on their purchase intentions, brand loyalty or ITR. Yet,
the implications of RO s are generally believed to have a negative influence on BBL, ABL
and/or ITR a brand.
Synthesising this to the literature review , it is clear that these findings are not surprising.
No researchers have directly investi gated consumers’ response to RO s, in which a direct
comparison cannot be made. Still, several researchers have previously noted that all consumers
simply cannot be forced into relationship s. Grönross (2006) accurately poi nted out that forcing
all consumers into relationships will result in inappropriate, ineffective and inefficient
marke ting activities and behaviour.
A common word used in almost every single interview was “annoying”. Rendering
Fournier et.al (1998) quote , this problem was accurately portrayed: “Customers delight in
neither. Customers cope. They tolerate sales clerks who hound them with questions every time
they buy a battery… They juggle the flood of invitations to participate in frequent buyer rewards
programs” (p. 43). The respondents surely seems to “delight in neither”. Furthermore, it was
suggested that the attempt to build relationships might be the exact thing that destroys one
(Fournier et al. 1998). Conferring the responses, this is likewise indic ated here.
Similarly, surveys from CEB pointed out that constant interaction can add to the already
overwhelming amount of information bombarding consumers every day. Consequently,
proposing a potentially adverse effect on consumers’ intentions to purcha se, repurchase and
recommend a product or service. Thus, identifying cognitive overload as the cause of this
adverse effect (Section 2.8). The findings here notably support this proposition. Many
respondents identified the quantity of RO s as essential. I n the context of receiving information

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

40
and marketing messages, phrases and words as “an excess amount of”, “too much”,
“bombardment” and “overwhelming” were common . Indeed, it points to the notion that
extensive information is far fr om empowering, but overwh elming. Thus, explains th e negative
attitudes towards RO s.
4.2.3 RO2: Identify what motivates consumers to engage/interact with brands, and
examine if their motivation depends on their level of engagement, commitment or
involvement.
4.2.3.1 Level of engag ement with brands and motivation for engaging with brands
Before portraying the respondent’s motivations for engaging with brands, it is foremost
necessary to understand their attitudes towards engagement. In this context, understand their
desire to engage /interact with brands and be approached by them . Hence, obtain an
understanding of their underlying motives for engaging with brands.
In relation to engagement, many of the responses are somewhat si milar to the ones
concerning ROs. Since RO s is a type of engagement, this was to be expected. Again, several
people highlight the preference to seek out information on their own terms while mentioning a
limited interest in engaging with brands. In fact, several respondents have a rather negative
attitude toward s engagement, primarily due to the excessive amount of information.
 “I just want to be able to access the information I find relevant. I do not have a need to
actively communicate with brands. As long as they keep their promises, remain
interesting and op en about their business I see no need to communicate more with
them” . – Maiken
 “I definitely have a negative attitude towards interacting with brands today, it is not
because I don’t think that it can be interesting sometimes, but if it is too much , then y ou
are overwhelmed by it” . – Kristina
 “Sometimes you just receive information in what feels like inco nvenient or
inappropriate times. S ometimes it becomes inconvenient and annoying because you
receive it all the time and everywhere you go… It is often some thing that takes up a lot
of time, time that I think most people feel they have less of. A nd also it can just become
too much and you just want to get rid of the brand. You know, if you give them your
hand then they try to take your whole arm (Danish sayin g that relates to being greedy)” .
– Brian

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

41
 “if I receive communication material too often I will be very likely to see it as negative” .
– Anja
 “Often it is just too easy to see right through all the advertising bullshit (sorry for my
choice of word). You kn ow, it can just seem so fake when companies interact with you
because it is evident that they only do it to make me buy something. But in general I
think what annoys me the most is just when I feel that I didn’t ask for this information,
when I feel that i t is thrown in my head” . – Knud.
 “I think that if there is an excessive amount of communication, which I often think there
is, then I see it very negatively. No matter where you go tod ay, communication is
everywhere. I f you are anywhere online on Facebook , a website or alike , commercials
and pop ups are everywhere , and if you want membership cards or be part of loyalty
programs you always receive way to much information regarding all sorts of things you
have no interest in. I quickly start to see it as spa m, which of course has the opposite
effect of what brands intended” . – Maria
As in the case with RO s, the participants do mention potential positive outcomes and
advantages of interacting with brands. The critical determining factor seems to be the amount
and relevance of communication. Those examples will though not be presented here as the
positive outcomes are highly similar to those described in the potenti al positive outcomes of
ROs (Section 4.2.2).
In summary, findings shows that in general the respo ndents are not overly engaged with
brands. This is the result of limited time and experience telling them that when engaging, the
amount of information brands provide will quickly become overwhelming. Therefore, it is a
general belief that there are few incentive s for engaging with brands.
In regards to the type of motivation for brand engagement , there is a strong level of
agreement in relation to the reasons for communicating with brands. Most point out rather
simple motivati ons for interacting with bran ds:
 “My primary motivation is probably just to get customer service, if I need a problem to
be fixed or if I need to make a purchase”. – Kristina
 “My motivation is usually to get more information, about either a product or a certain
offer. I probably often also just communicate with them to ge t discounts”. – Anja

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

42
 “The only times I communicate with brands are when I buy products and when I have
trouble or questions regarding the given product. I do not have any kind of motivation
to communicate with brand at all, besides maybe get discounts to save money.
 “Just to get gui dance, a reclamation or advices ”. – Morten
 “I think that sometimes I communicate with brands because I want other people to see
that I like these brands, to show friends that I have good tast e and like quality brands.
So you could say I do it to show my image. Else, I don’t really know, I guess I often also
communicate with brands just to get some help with a problem I have with a product.
Maybe a defect or other issue s. And then I of course c ommunicate with brands when I
receive their offers and discounts that I often exploit” . – Brian
 “Typically, I would say it is because I have trouble with e.g. their products, or it might
be because they have made some changes and I am probably more inclin ed to call and
complain than call and praise them” . – Peter
Reflecting on this, strong commonalities can certainly be detected in people’s
motivation for engaging with brands. Discounts and customer service are the two most
important types of motivation. I n relation to engagement, the responses vary more , but are albeit
mostly negative and depict rather low levels of engagement. Researchers have explained that
today Millenials are active problem solvers . Thus, a generation filled with eagerness to engage
with brands and be interested in them (Section 2.6). It is though evident that this is not an
interest and /or eagerness shared by everyone. This support research findings from the literature
regarding consumer’s lacking interest i n relational behaviour and ROs. Particularly, CEB
claims that consumer’s willingness to engage in brand relationships is a myth and that
engagement in brand relationships is merely a means of getting discounts (Section 2.7) . Several
respondents’ mentions exactly “discounts” as a gr eat motivation for engagement. These
findings therefore definitely does not contradict CEB’s claim.
In addition, CEB identified “more interaction is better” as a myth (Section 2.8). Here,
claiming that consumers are already exposed to an overwhelming amou nt of information every
day, in which more interaction results in cognitive overload (Section 2.8) . It is clear from the
qualitative findings that more interaction is not better . Little information may have a positive
effect. However, a lot of interaction is oppositely pinpointed as the exact reason for their
negative attitudes. Consequently, it provides strong support to the claim that “more interaction
is better ” indeed is a myth.

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

43
Overall, t he motivations for interacting with brands seems to be quite independent of
the level of engagement as respondents put forth the same types of motivations despite of their
interest for engaging with brands. This was though difficult to measure in the interviews, thus
will be investigated thoroughly in the quantitati ve section.
4.2.3.2 Commitment and involvement with brands
Commitment and involvement are both behavioural constructs providing vital insight
into consumers’ attachments to brands. (Section 2.7). Though, while literature distinguishes
between the two separ ate, a lbeit closely related, concepts this distinction was not presented for
the interviewees . Accordingly, respondents were only involved in a general discussion of their
involvement and attachment to brands.
Brian, who previously indicated a positive a ttitude towards RO s, shows a high level of
involvement and attachment to brands. “I feel attached to many brands, so I would say that I
have a strong attachment to brands” . When asked to explain how this shows itself he expresses
“I often recommend and adv ocate for the brands that I am a proud user of”. Brian argues that
because he “ feel loyal and act as a loyal customer” his level of attachment shows itself pretty
well. Once again, Brian distinguishes a bit from the remaining respondents.
Conferring the remaining respondents , a limited degree of attachment and involvement
can be detected . Arguably, some respondents mention a certain level of attachment, but likewise
clarifies obvious limitations . Examples include Maiken who is const rained to a few select
brands and Anja, Kristina and Mette who are constrained to certain product categories.
 “I am involved with brands to the degree that I actively search information about
companies that I have an interest in and which have performed well over time” . –
Maike n
 “Even though I feel that brands are important , as they are good indicators of what
products stand for, I am not really closely attached to many brands. However, two
brands that I feel a very close attachment to is Änglemark which I just mentioned a nd
my telephone company Call Me ”. – Anja
 “I have a select few brands that I feel close to, but in general, I am not particularly
close to any brands… I would say Zara, H&M and Apple… But I think that I am not
really involved with brands that much in general to b e honest. I am involved with a few
brands, particularly the ones that I have already mentioned, but my attachment is not
closer than if I find something bet ter, then I shift to that brand ”. – Kristina.

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

44
 “I am definitely not very involved with brands. I al so hope that I am independent of
brands”… For a lot of brands I just buy what is cheapest, for instance with food related
products or clothes. So those brands I do not really think about, but for instance with
telephones, computers and so on I definitely f eel closer to them because within this
category I think that quality is more important ”. – Mette
The remaining respondents displays lit tle to no attachment to brands, as exemplified
next:
 “No attachment really. I don’t feel close to brands in that way”…. I do not feel like I
am involved with brands. I do not feel close to any brands that springs to mind. Also,
since I do not consider brands that important and are not that interested in brands, it is
only logical that I do not have an interest to be invol ved with brands in any way” .- Knud
 “I am not involved with brands at all. So well, there is not that much to explain… it is
just not something that is interesting for me. As I said earlier, I am not really a loyal
kind of person. I don’t care that much abo ut brands and I don’t see it as my
responsibility to support any brands, therefore I also don’t have an interest in being
involved with brands.” – Maria
 “I may have some preferences towards some brands. But I’m not sure I would say that
I have a close atta chment to any specific brands… “I am not really that involved with
any brands. But still, to some degree, I guess I am since I feel closer to some brands
than I do to others. But in general I would say that I’m not overly involved with brands.”
– Peter
Whe n analysing the responses and reflecting upon the results , consumers are arguably
quite uninvolved with brands and show few signs of emotional attachment. A notions supported
by the indications made in relation to consumer’s lack of interest in brand rela tionships, in
communicating with brands and their negative view on engagement (Section 4.2.2; 4.2.3) . As
mentioned earlier, a connection worth considering is the link between consumers’ low level of
interest in brand relationships and their expected low l evels of involvement and commitment to
brands. A link that these findings seems to support, considering the above reflections.
In relation to consumers’ relatedness and feelings towards brands , commitment and
involvement are vital aspects to consider, thus essential for a CBR (Section 2.7). Both variables
may be regarded as conditions for a relationship. I f someone is not involved and committed to
a brand, one is neither likely to be interested in a rel ationship with that brand ( Section 2.7).

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

45
Therefore, respondent’s minor level of attachme nt and involvement with brands indicates t hat
everyone far from shares the Millennials interest in brands and their willingness to engage and
form relationships with brands (Section 2.6) . By this reasoning, supporting the finding from
CEB suggesting that only 20 % are actually willing to engage in relationships with brands.
Thus, strengthens the argument provided by CEB that consumers’ willingness to engage in
CBR s is a myth.
4.2.4 RO 3: Understand Brand Loyalty and H ow It Relates to Involvement, Commitment
and E ngagement.
As part of investigating the connection between loyalty, involvement, commitment and
engagement , a deeper exploration of brand loyalty was performed during the interviews.
Emphasis was put on the participa nt’s level of brand loyalty. Thus, on obtain ing insight s into
the perceived connection between loyalty and brand relationships , in order to provide a better
understanding of how consumers view relationships with brands. Consumers view on , and
interest in , CBR is the central theme in this study , therefore highly relevant to investigate from
several angles.
Maiken express having “certain brands that I am highly loyal to and which I would buy
no matter what. I for example like Apples products a lot ”. Hence, explains that her loyalty
originates from several good experiences with their products, and states that what makes her
loyal is “ if a brand performs on a continuous basis that is what makes me a loyal customer. If
they keep on coming up with interesting n ew products, I keep on being invested in them” . Other
respondents likewise show a certain level of loyalty towards brands:
 I do want to be loyal to the brands that I am very happy with. If they make great quality
products at good prices, obviously I want to be loyal to them. I want to continue using
their products and support their business so that I can keep buying their products in the
future” . – Kristina.
 “I am very interested in being loyal to the brands that have great products. If their
products wo rk excellently, then I definitely will want to be loyal to that brand” . – Brian
 “I guess I am a little bit loyal towards some of the more expensive brands” . – Mette
 “I would say that I am loyal to a number of brands” .- Peter
Nevertheless, the same responde nts who just showed an interest in being loyal to brands,
later explains their loyalty and how little is needed for them to change. This suddenly provides
an entirely different view on the respondent’s level of brand loyalty.

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

46
 “For instance my loyalty to H &M and ZARA are mostly based on the fact that it is quite
good quality to very good prices. I am satisfied with their quality and design, but mostly
the drivin g factor is that it is so cheap. “ – Kristina.
 But at the moment that they don’t work as good as expected, I will try to find another
brands that has better products” . – Brian
 “I am loyal to some brands, but not because of interest, I would say. And I am not 100%
loyal to any brand, I will always be likely to change a brand if I find something better,
cheaper or something” . – Mette
 “I would not say it is any kind of strong loyalty. I think I just buy many of these brands
because I’m used to them and are happy with the quality of the product and not really
because I have any particular interest in the b rands or interest in supporting and
helping this brand. I just buy them because I know it works or tastes great, I do not
really care whether I support the brands or show my loyalty to the brand. If I find
another product that tastes better or works better , I would probably switch to that
product without thinking for a second” . – Peter
As epitomised by these examples, the participants who see themselves as loyal, a re
essentially not truly loyal. Based on their statements, it is obvious that the type of loya lty the
respondents have to brands are weak and fragile or driven by price. An example from Peter
exemplifies perfectly the fragility of consumers brand loyalty.
Peter’s story is related to the travel Agency Falck Lauritsen. Previously the favourite
trave l agency, Peter had been travelling with them for several occasions , despite the ir high
prices . Nevertheless, owing to good experience s he was willing to pay the extra to be “certain
that everything was good”. Peter explains his experience : “In one vacatio n, I had ordered an
island roundabout in a jeep where they had promised Danish -speaking guides, but in reality,
no one spoke Danish, English or any other language that we could understand. Therefore, I
requested my money back (for the trip), which they wer e unwilling to give”. In conclusion, Peter
firmly establishes the consequences “ Ever since, I have never travelled with Falck Lauritsen.
Before, I would consider myself a very loyal customer, but still, after just one negative
experience, I immediately dro pped the company, and I am sure that I will never book a vacation
with them again”.
Peter had been a loyal customer to Falck Lauritsen for years, but aft er just one negative
experience, brand loyalty was substituted by hatred . In a bigger picture, it adds to the notion

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

47
that little is needed for the respondents to shift to another brand. One negative experience, a
cheaper product, better value for money or a better functioning product are no doubt capable of
causing brand switching .
In addition to what i s already presented, two respondents see themselves as having no
loyalty or interest in being loyal to brands.
 “I’m not really a loyal kind of person… I rebuy a lot of brands, but not out of loyalty. I
buy those brands because I like them, either their tas te or quality or because they are
cheap… I am not attached to any of these brands, so as soon as I experience a better
product or maybe just something cheaper or easier accessible I would change to that
product ”. – Maria
 “I am not really interested in b eing loyal. This does not mean that I do not like any
brands and that I am not buying the same brands repeatedly. What I mean is that I do
not buy certain brands repeatedly because I want to support their brand or because I
think that what they stand for i s great or something like that. I am much more focused
on the individual product that the actual brand. To me it is all about quality versus
price. Therefore, I also often change and shift between different brands and products,
so that is why I don’t think that I am really loyal to brands but also why I am not really
interest in being loyal” . – Knud
In relation to the connection between loyalty and relationships, and how consumers
view relationships, the responses are quite interesting. The participants largely agree on the
viewpoint that being loyal and having a relationship is somewhat similar. Several though argue
that having a relationship is a stage beyond loyalty i.e. something that requires a stronger
emotional bond. Considering the high level of pri ce loyalty , the respondents depicted earlier, it
suggests that few are engaged in emotionally deep relationships with brands.
 “I think that if I am loyal there is also a great likelihood that I have a relationship with
a brand, which I would just define a s “stronger loyalty”. – Brian
 “Having a relationship with a brand, for me, is associated with a closer and deeper
emotional bo nd than being loyal to a brand”. – Peter
 “if you are truly loyal to a brand and really want to support a brand, for any personal
reason, then you also have a relationship, but you need to have this connection and not
just rebuy the product for no apparent reason other than it just tastes good or look s
good or something like that”. Maria

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

48
 “To have a relationship with a brand you would need some kind of stronger emotional
connection than you would h ave just to be loyal to a brand “. – Knud
 “Loyalty can have different degrees I would say, and if you are highly loyal and really
passionate about a brand I think it will naturally evolve into a relationship” . – Mette
While this improves the understanding of how they view relationships with and loyalty
towards brands, this was further illuminated by asking the respondents to characterise a CBR,
while having in mind their perception of an interpe rsonal relationship.
 “A relationship with a brand is more superficial. You may have an interest or
attachment to a brand but it is a one way relationship. There is no mutual interest as
such besides the company wanting to keep you as a customer” . – Maiken
 “A relationship to a brand will be much much weaker than any kind of relationship that
you can have with a friend, boyfriend, mom or dad ”. Kristina
 “I actually think it is rude to compare a personal relationship with a relationship to a
brand, but well, m aybe someone truly has these deep feelings for brands, I just do not
understand it” . – Mette
 “It is like a relationship that has most of what a normal relationship has but less of
everything. Less love, less interest, less support. It is much more about p ersonal self –
interest, from both sides” . – Brian
 “A relationship to a brand is something that you have one day, but may drop the other
day if something better comes along or if you have a negative experience with a brand” .
– Knud
 “Brands don’t help to solv e your real problems, product solve them, not brands and
similarly consumers rarely want to honestly help brands, they just want to have their
own way and make them fix their problems. There is no relationship in that” . – Maria
 “It is a very different kind of relationship and level of loyalty in the sense that so little
needs to happen before I simply choose to buy another brand. You could say that it is
human to fail, and therefore people forgive. But if brands fail, you don’t forgive as easily
because the re are almost always other great options to try” . – Peter.
The respondents view a relationship as something quite similar to brand loyalty,
although a stronger level of brand loyalty. Yet, when asked to characterise relationships with
brands, it becomes o bvious that they see little connection between a CBR and interpersonal
relationship. CBR s are characterised as something fragile, weak, easy replaceable and with no
emotional attachment . Interestingly, this contradicts t heir own words when first defining

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

49
relationships as something emotionally stronger than loyalty , but hence characterises a
relationship as weak and fragile.

The work from particularly Fournier (1998), established that the emotional aspects
related to brand relationships are essential for r elationship quality (Section 2.4) . The
respondents though appear to define CBR s as something founded on few strong emotional
aspects. At least, the respondents seem unwilling to put strong feelings into a CBR. Likewise,
few appear to have strong relationsh ips with brands, albeit some price -oriented loyalty towards
brands. Nonetheless, according to their definition of loyalty, the strength of loyalty towards
certain brands is weak and mostly price oriented. Similar indications were discovered in the
literatu re where Accenture (2011) suggested that consumers nowadays change between brands
more frequently and look for deals increasingly more, in spite of increased satisfaction with
customer services (Section 1.1).
In the literature, Grönross (2006) stated that “a customer often do not want to be engaged
in something they would define as a relationship with the firm” (p. 408): a statement respondents
seem to agree with. The respondents do not seem to be interested in close rel ationships with
brands. Primarily, a relationship with a brand is not something regarded as strong and
emotionally deep.
4.3 Quantitative Analysis of Q uestionnaire
4.3.1 Exploratory Data A nalysis
Description is an exploratory type of data analysis critical to detect data problems as outlie rs,
non-normal distributions, coding issu es and data input errors. In addition, it is useful to check
whether the assumptions are met regarding the statistics planned for later use , and to display
the demographic distribution of respondents (Morgan, Leech , Gloeckner , & Barrett , 2013).
4.3.1.1 Socio -Demographic Characteristics

There are 270 valid response s, corresponding to the sample size objective set previously
(Section 3.1 .6). From inspection of a frequency table , no missing data were found within the
sociodemographic variables , thus suggesting no data entry errors (Appendix 10).
As reported previously, a quota sampling method was adhered to with focus on gender,
age, educational level and salary. This was chosen to ensure that the distribution of respondents
within the sample are similar to the distribution of consumers within the population, according
to these variables. Males and females are almost equal ly represented in the sample: 136 males

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

50
(50.4%) and 134 females (49.6% of the respondents). From Figure 1 it is possible to conclude
that 37.41% of the respondents are aged between 30 -49, w hereas only 26. 67 % are between 15 –
29.
Figure 1 – Distribution of age in groups

With almost half of the respondents having a medium lo ng education (Figure 2) , this is
the most common level of education. Next fo llows a short education with 43.33 % whereas
only 8. 15 % of the respondents have a long education.
Figure 2 – Distribution of education levels

Figure 3 shows that 19.26 % of the respondents earn more than 400.000 DKK a month,
39.63 % between 200.000 -399.999 DKK and 41.11 % somewhere between 0 -199.999 DKK.
Figure 3 . Distribution of salary in a year in groups (in DKK)

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

51
4.3.1.2 Summated Scales
Besides the socio demographic questions, and the rank -ordered question concerning
motivation for engaging with brands, all questions in the questionnaire measure s underlying
constructs (Section 3.2 ). As a result, the individual variables ha ve been used to compute
summated scales in SPSS . Nonetheless, it can still be useful to make descriptive analyses of the
individual variables, in relation to the scale they measure. Thus, get a feeling of the respondents
answer to each question . Hence, provide a great insight into the different constructs.
Subsequently, inferential statistics , on the summated scales , can be applied to provide statistical
support .
Prior to looking at the individual items in relation to the scale they measure , a brief
analys is of the means, shape of distribution and range of data for each summated scale were
conducted (Appendix 11 ). In this way, an initial insight into important aspects as central
tendency, variability, range of scores and shape of distribution of the data was acquired (Morgan
et al., 2013 ). Likewise, an analysis of the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients , obtained for each of
the seven scales , tested their reliability (Section 3.2.4) . The coefficients for the BBL scale
displayed values below the minimum requiremen t of 0.60. However, the three questions
measuring BBL are represented twice in the questionnaire . It measures the affect after both 1 –
2 RO s and 3 -4 RO s. For 3 -4 RO s the coefficient is . 690 in contrast to . 53 for 1-2 RO s. Deriving ,
it was regarded as a dece nt reason for accepting the scales validity. The remaining scales are
all acceptable, most scales even forms a good reliable co mposite with levels above .80
(Appendix 7).
4.3.2 Descriptive A nalysis of Individual Variables
A deeper look into each question , relating to its respective scale, will be provided in the
follo wing sections through descriptive analyses. Subsequently , a better understanding of the
rank-ordered question in relation to motivation will be provided.
4.3.2.1 Individual variables measur ing behavioural brand loyalty (BBL)
The following three questions measures consumers BBL , when receiving 1-2 ROs a
month from a brand. To the first question “I would not switch to a competitor, even if I have a
problem with the services I received”, the re spondents show a high level of disagreement with
44.4 % disagreeing with the statement . Likewise, 10. 1 % strongly disagrees as compared to the
2.6 % who strongly agrees and 15 .3 % who agrees. T he other two questions “I would intend to
do less business with the brand” (scale reversed) and “I would intend to do more business with
the brand” though shows high levels of agreement, suggesting that 1 -2 monthly ROs from a

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

52
brand is likely to affect the respondents level of BBL positively. This would also be the gen eral
conclusion, albeit the first question suggests a limited positive impact (Figure 4).
Figure 4 – Behavioural brand loyalty 1 -2 relationship offerings

When asked the same question later, however with the difference of receivin g 3-4 ROs,
the results are remar kably different. As evident from Figure 5 , the response s are predominantly
negative i.e. respondents either disagree or strongly disagree with the statements. This indicates
that while 1 -2 ROs might have a slight ly positive impact on consumer’s level of BBL , the
effects are highly negative in the case of 3-4 ROs.

Figure 5 – Behavioural brand loyalty 3 -4 relationship offerings

4.3.2.2 Individual variables measuring attitudinal brand loyalty (ABL)
A comparison of the respondents ABL , dependent on the reception of 1-2 or 3 -4 ROs,
reveal strong contrasts . Responses to the question , the first time , reveals that people would not
be willing to pay a higher price and only around 25 % would commit stronge r to the brand. Yet,

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

53
they would be willing to stay loyal to the brand for keeping its promises , and be likely to
consider their product their first choice when evaluating related products. It suggest at close to
neutral or slight ly positive effect on consu mers ABL when receiving 1-2 RO s (Figure 6) .
Figure 6 – Attitudinal brand loyalty 1 -2 relationship offerings
On the contrary, when receiving 3-4 ROs a strong negative impact on their ABL can be
detected . For all questions, the resp ondents disagree and strongly disagree significant ly more
than agree ing and strong ly agree ing to the statements. In fact, a relevant percentage of people
strongly disagree with all statements, whereas almost no one strongly agrees .
Figure 7 – Attitudinal brand loyalty 3 -4 relationship offers
4.3.2.3 Individual variables mea suring intentions to recommend (ITR)
Figure 8 displays a strong positive impact of 1 -2 ROs on people s ITR a brand. Only to
the first question the respondents disagrees slightly more than agreeing, in terms of being likely
to post positive messages about the brand on the internet . For the remaining three questions,
between 44 % and 51. 5 % agrees to be likely to recommend the brand in some way. In addition,
signific antly more strongly agrees than strongly disagrees.

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

54
Figure 8 – Intentions to recommend a brand 1 -2 relationship offers
In Figure 9, a similar pattern as the previous two cases reveals itself. Respondents
mostly disagree and stron gly disagree with all questions. The agree responses are more than
halved from the previ ous responses concerning 1 -2 RO s. Likewise , extremely few strongly
agree in any of the statements related to ITR a brand following 3 -4 RO s.
Figure 9 – Intentions to recommend a brand 3 -4 relationship offers
4.3.2.4 Summing up BBL, ABL and ITR
The descriptive analyses of RO s impact on the respondents BBL , ABL and ITR,
displays a considerable change in pattern of responses when going from 1 -2 RO s to 3-4 RO s.
Accordingly , highlighting that the quantity of ROs is a critical factor . Few offerings can though
have a slight ly positive impact on BBL and ABL and a stronger positive affect on consumers
ITR a brand . In contrast, 3-4 ROs impacts every sing ly variable strikingly negatively.

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

55
To further investigate the diversity in responses, dependent on the number of RO s, a
computatio n of the gaps in responses was conducted. The mean value s of the gap s, between the
responses to the questions related to 1 -2 ROs and 3 -4 respectively, are significantly different
from zero. Thus, indicating a significant difference between these responses. The mean value
gaps are displayed in Figure 10.
Figure 10 – Mean values of responses to individu al questions related to BBL, ABL and ITR a brand
Equally , the differences in distribution of responses is one or higher, a great number of
times, while only rarely below zero. The distribution of the gaps is shown in Figure 11 .
Figure 11 – Distribution of the gaps , depending on the number of RO s (1-2 vs 3.4)

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

56
4.3.2.5 Involvement with brands
In relation to respondent’s general level of involvement with brands , a clear pattern is
visible (Figure 12). A comparison of the level of disagreement and agreement shows
significantly higher levels of the former. Likewise, respondents strongly disagree significantly
more than strongly agree with any of the statements. There is a considerable block of neutral
answers. N evertheless, the co nclusion is that the respondents have significantly low level s of
involvement with brands. A finding supported by the mean value of 3.29, acquired from the
frequency tab ulation of the summated scales (Appendix 11).
Figure 12 – Individual question measuring involvement
4.3.2.6 Commitment with brands
Usually , commitment is measured in relation to a certain brand , however without a case –
study approach the questions are instead directly concerned with “brands I like”. This is highly
interesting from a research perspective and the purpose of this study as respondents would be
expected to have a certain degree of commitment to brands of their liking . Overall, the
responses are quite divided . People are clearly not willing to forgive bran ds, as evident from
question one where 36. 84 % disagrees and 20. 30 % strongly disagrees . In contrast, a large
portion of 44.78 % agrees to postpone a purchase temporarily in case of unavailability. The
willingness to make sacrifice s to keep using a product and their general level of loyalty is almost
evenly split in terms of positive and negative responses (Figure 13) . Thus, it is difficult to grasp
if the overall level of commitment is primarily negative or positive. However, by looking at the
mean value o f 3.12 (Appendix 11 ), it can be concluded that in average th e levels of commitment
are low, despite of the fact that this was measured in relation to brands the respondents like.

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

57
Figure 13 – Individual questions measuring commi tment
4.3.2.7 Engagement with brands
Engagement is likewise measured in relation to b rands that the respondents like. The
variation in responses to the questions that measures engagement are quite large. “I like to visit
the website of a brand I like ”, “I would be interested in merchandise with a brands name I like ”
and “I am always interested in learning more about brands I like ” have high levels of agreement.
The respondents though seem to think less about others opinions , derived from the higher levels
of disagreement with “I am proud to have others know I use a brand I like” and “I really like to
talk about brands I like with others”. Overall, the agreement levels are significantly higher than
the level of the exact counterpart . However, the strongly di sagree levels are generally
significantly higher than the strongly agree levels (Figure 14) . Accordingly, the average mean
value of 3.04 is meaningful (Appendix 11) . Being so close to the average mean of three in this
type of L ikert scale, suggest that the respondent’s engagement levels are close to neutral, albeit
relatively low. However, rendering that engagement is measured in relation to brands the
respondents like; it indicate that consumers are not considerably engaged with brands.
Figure 14 – Individual questions measuring engagement

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

58
4.3.2.8 Brand loyalty
The impact of ROs on BBL , ABL and ITR was p reviously investigated. Nevertheless,
the respondents ove rall level of brand loyalty in relation to brands they like was measu red
separately . More than 50 % of the respondents agree with the statement s that ”if I was satisfied
with a brand, I would say positive things about the brand to others” and “if I w as satisfied with
a brand, I would buy from the same company in the near fu ture again” . This shows the high
importance of satisfacti on in relation to brand loyalty, as suggest ed in the literature ( Section
2.9). However, these results deviate from the remaining questions as these largely contain
disagree or strongly disagree respo nses. The respondents certainly do not believe that it is
important to feel a s trong relationship to the bran d or always consider the brand before buying
a product.
Similarly , results shows a strong receptiveness for competitive commercials, as
highlight ed by the strong belief that competitive commercials can reduce the interest for buying
a brand of their liking. In general, it becomes visible that the high number of disagree and
strongly disagree responses leads to a general low level of brand loyalty a mong the respondents
(Figure 15) . Particularly owing to the large number of respondents who strongly disagree with
some statements. This is supported by the me an value of 3. 23 for the scale (Appendix 11).
Figure 15 – Individual que stions measuring brand loyalty
4.3.2.9 Motivation for interacting/engaging with brands
An exploration of the most important types of motivation for engaging/interacting with
brands shows that particularly three elements are selected as highly important. Op positely, two
reasons are given little importance (Figure 16) . The mean ranking of the motivational variables

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

59
below display that “to get discounts ”, “to get customer service ” and “to make a purchase ” are
the three most important types of motivation for eng aging with brands. On the other hand, “to
be part of a community ” and “to feel connected to the brand ” is revealed to be of least
importance to the respondents .
Derived from a table displaying the distribution of responses in relation to motivation
for en gaging/interacting with brands, a further illumination is provided (Appendix 12). 8.7 %
of the respondents selected “to get discounts” as most important. Second choice was “to get
customer service” with 40. 4 % and third choice was “to make a purchase” with 28.9 %. In
contrast , 38.9 % selected “to feel connected to the brand ” as the 11th choice. The least important
was “to be part of a community” with 42. 6 % selecting this as the 12th choice .
Interestingly, this strongly suggests that people engage for e xtremely simple and self-
beneficial reasons. It characterises a consumer as someone who buys to save money , and if
problems s hould arise, requires assistance . Saving money is clearly key. Thus, f urther
characterises consumers as rational and egoistic , and not as someone concerned with forming
relationships and being loyal to brands. I t seems of little importance to establish a relationship
with a brand and to feel as part of a community.
Figure 16 – Mean ranking of the motivation variables 1=most important; 12=least important

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

60
4.4 Hypothesis T esting
To fulfil the research objectives , research h ypotheses stating specific predictions,
concerning the content of each objective , were formulated. The statistical testing of these
hypotheses will utilise the objective of reaching the main goal of this study (Section 1.2).
4.4.1 RO1: Explore consumers ’ interest in relational behaviour with brands, and uncover
their responses to relationship offerings from brands.
The four hypotheses related to the first research objective are:
 H1: The number of relationship offerings negatively affect the impact of r elationship
offerings on the respondents behavioural brand loyalty
 H2: The number of relationship offerings negatively affect the impact of relationship
offerings on the respondents attitudinal brand loyalty
 H3: The number of relationship offerings negati vely affect the impact of relationship
offerings on the respondents intentions to recommend a brand
 H4:There is a significant relation ship between consumer’s low levels of involvement,
commitment and engagement
In order to test H1, H2 and H3 , a paired -samp le t-test was used as the type of statistical
analysis. Three separate paired sample t -test were conducted (Appendix 13; 14; 15) . Each test
compares the means of one of the following variables: BBL , ABL and ITR a brand, when
receiving 3 -4 RO s versus 1 -2 ROs. In other words, the test determines whether there is a
statistically significant mean difference between ROs impact on BBL, ABL and ITM,
depending on the number of ROs.
The conclusion for each test is identical (Appendix 13; 14; 15 ). They suggest a
statistically significant difference between the means (p < .05). This means that the gaps
previously computed (Section 4.3.2.4 ) are statistically significantly positive. In other words,
H1, H2 and H3 are all accepted.
To test H4, i.e. investigate whether there is a statistically significant association bet ween
commitment, engagement, and involvement , Pearson correlation s were computed . Prior to
computing the correlation s, the assumptions that underlie Pearson’s correlation were checked:
no violations of linearity were found and no outliers were identified (Appendix 16 ).
Strong/large positive correlations were obtained between commitment, engagement,
and involvement. The Pearson correlation (r) is .714 for involvement -commitment, .696 for

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

61
involvement -engage ment and .684 for commitment -engagement (Appendix 17 ). These values
are according to Cohen (1988) a sign of very large effect size. Accordingly, respondents with
low levels of involvement are likely to have low levels of engagement and commitment while
people with low levels of commitment likewise will be likely to have low levels of engagement.
In addition, the scales significance (sig) values are < 0.01 (Appendix 17 ). This shows that the
probability that there is no relationship between these variables is very low, even close to zero.
Thus, H4 is accepted.
In brief, and regarding the first research objective, since H1, H2 and H3 were accepted,
it can confidently be established that the respondent’s responses to RO s dep ends highly on the
number of ROs. 3 -4 RO s have a strong negative impact o n consumers ’ level of BBL, ABL and
ITM. Accepting H4 suggests that consumers have little interest in relational behaviour with
brands. This is an obvious conclusion derived from the significant co rrelation between low
levels of commitment, engagement and involvement among the respondents.
4.4.2 RO2: Identify what motivates consumers to engage/interact with brands, and
examine if their motivation depends on their level of engagement, commitment or
involvement.
This research objective is firstly concerned with identifying consumers’ motivation for
engaging/interacting with brands . In terms of this, the descriptive analyses made clear
indications . Cleary, to get discounts, to get customer service and to make a purchase wer e the
three most important types of motivation. Oppositely, feeling connected to the brand and being
part of a community were of least importance (Section 4.3.2.9). These five types of motivations
are thus defined as the most and the least i mportant elemen ts respectively.
The second part of the research objective is concerned with the degree to which the
motivation for engaging with brands is dependent on the level of engagement , commitment or
involvement . This leads to the investigation of the following t hree research questions. These
questions were raised previously (Section 2.7), as no statistical tests are used to answer these.
 RQ1: Are consumers’ motivations for engaging with brands dependent on their level
of engagement?
 RQ2: Are consumers’ motiva tions for engaging with brands dependent on their level
of involvement?
 RQ3: Are consumers’ motivations for engaging with brands dependent on their level
of commitment?

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

62
It is interesting to investigate whether th ose who have high levels of engagement,
commit ment and involvement with brands are differently motivated from the remaining
respondents. This investigation will reveal the degree to which all respondents engage with
brands for the same reasons. RQ1, RQ2 and RQ3 will be investigated with the aid of gra phs.
Figure 17 shows the level of importance assigned by the respondents to the motivation
“get discounts. This representation shows how the response is determined by the level of
engagement, by having the mean values of engagement on the y -axis. A mean v alue of three is
the average. The higher the value is above three, the less engaged the respondent is.
Contrastingly, the lower the value is bel ow three, the more unengaged the respondents is . By
inspection, it is visible that the variety in responses is e xtremely limited by the level of
engagement. Those who show high levels of engagement (mean values below 3) , clearly still
rank “to get discounts” as the most or second most important motivation for engaging with
brands. Overall, the response patterns are highly similar above and below the horizontal
reference line .
Figure 17 – Motivation "to get discounts", varying with the level of engagement

A highly similar pattern , to the one just described , is shown in Figure 18 . Again, peop le
with high engagement values definitely still sees customer service as one of the most important
types of motivation. Likewise, the responses below and above the horizontal reference line are
highly similar.

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

63
Figure 18 – Motivati on "to get customer service", varying with the level of engagement

The pattern in responses “to ma ke a purchase” is widely spread (Figure 19). Most people
have selected it as the third to fourth most important type of motivation. In general, the
responses below and above the horizontal reference line are quite similar. Respondents with
low levels of engagement even depict a higher inclination to consider “to get customer service”
as less important, with a few more selecting it as the 11th and least importa nt type of motivation.
Figure 19 – Motivation "to make a purchase", varying with the level of engagement
Turning the attention to the least important type of motivations, Figure 20 prevails a
high level of consistency in the answ ers from respondents with high and low levels of
engagement. There is even a slight overrepresentation of frequencies in the 11th choice and least
important choice below the mean value of 3. Thus, i ndicating that those who engage a lot still
tend to view “ to feel connected to the brand” as one of the least important types of motivation.

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

64
Figure 20 – Motivation "to feel connected to the brand ", varying with the level of engagement
Lastly, the responses “ be part of a community” depic ts similar tendencies (Figure 21) .
The variety in responses is limited and most people, indep endent of the level of engagement,
does not consider it as an important type of motivation. Few exceptions do appear .
Nevertheless , these exceptions are evenly spr ead below and above the horizontal reference line.
Figure 21 – Motivation "to be part of a community", varying with the level of engagement

Similar graphs as the ones above , were created with commitment and involvement as
the variable of interest . However, to avoid repetition, these analyse s will be less slavish and
without a step -by-step inspection of each graph. All graphs can instead be found in appendix
18 and 19, whereas the analysis follows next.

Generally , the graphs with the variables commitment and involvement show highly
similar tendencies . The levels of involvement and commitment are rather low, meaning that

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

65
most responses are naturally above the horizontal reference line. In relation to the three most
important types of motivation, similar patter ns to the ones depicted with engagement can be
identified for both involvement and commitment . The level of importance assigned to each type
of motivation is quite independent of the level of involvement and commitment . This me ans
that people with high levels of involvement and people with high levels of commitment , assign
a similar level of importance to the most important types of motivation as those with low levels
of the respective construct. Similarly, the response patterns to the two least important types of
motivation are visibly independent of the level of commitment and involvement . This is
displayed by the evenly spread responses across both sides of the horizontal reference line .
Likewise, it is clear that those with h igh levels of commitment and involvement still find “to
feel connected to the brand” and “to be part of the community” as the two least important types
of motivation (Appendix 18; 19 ).

In brief , consumers’ motivations for engaging with brands do not seem to depend on
their l evel of engagement , involvement or commitment, thus answering RQ1, RQ2 and RQ3 .
In other words, the data suggest that in general , consumer s with high levels of involvement,
commitment and engagement consider “to get discounts”, “to mak e a purchase” and “to get
customer service” as the most important reason s for interacting /engaging with bra nds.
Likewise, consumers regard “to be part of a community” and “to fee l conn ected to the brand”
as the least important reasons for interacting/engag ing with brands. The answer to the second
research objective is therefore that these are clearly the most and least important types of
motivations, and not dependent on the consumers’ level of engagem ent, commitment or
involvement.
4.4.3 RO3: Understand Br and Loyalty and How It Relates to Involvement, Commitment
and E ngagement
An understanding of brand loyalty was acquired through the literature review,
interviews and descriptive analyses. To validate the joint impact of involvement, commitment
and engageme nt on brand loyalty, the following hypothesis will be tested:
 H5:Involvement, engagement and commitment are joint predictors of the level of brand
loyalty
A multiple linear regression model was estimated to investigate the extent to which
commitment, invol vement and engagement simultaneously pred ict the levels of brand loyalty .
Predicting one var iable from another variable is what distinguishes regression from correlation .

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

66
In correlations, the purpose is simply to investigate the relationship between the va riables
(Morgan et al., 2013 ). The assumptions underlying multiple linear regression were all upheld
(Appendix 21).
Commitment, engagement and involvement significantly predicts the level of brand
loyalty, F (3, 252) = 154.526, p < .0005, adj. R2 = .648 i ndicates that 64,8 % of the variance in
brand loyalty is explained by the explanatory varia bles in the model. Cohen ( 1988 ) defines this
as a large effect. All three variables added statistically significant ly to the prediction, p < .05.
The adjusted R2 val ue is only 0,04 points lower (.672 – .668 = .004 or 0,4 %). Thus, if the model
were derived from the population as opposed to a sample, it would only account for
approximately 0.4 % less variance in the outcome, suggesting great cross -validity (Field 2013
p. 336). All three variables ads significantly to the prediction of brand loyalty, p < .05.
In conclusion, this means that H5 is accepted as involvement, commitment and
engagement all are statistical ly significant predictors of the level of brand loyalty. These results
are important, as they underline the prominence of the variables engagement, involvement and
commitment. Moreover, they suggest that the respondents are not highly brand loyal i.e. not
likely to be interested in forming strong relational bon ds with brands. Thus, significantly
support ing the belief that consumers are uninterested in relational behaviour with bra nds i.e.
that a CBR paradox exists.

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

67
5. Conclu sion
5.1 Summary of Findings and C onclusions
The overall aim of this research w as to acquire an insight into consumers’ interest in
relational behaviour with brands. In this context, understand the paradox of having a marketing
philosophy centred on relationship building , when consumers display a considerable lack of
interest in rela tional behaviour with brands. Subsequently, understand the potential implications
of giving ROs to uninterested consumers. The spe cific research objectives were:
 RO1: Explore consumers’ interest in relational behaviour with brands, and
uncover their respo nses to relationship offerings from brands.
 RO2: Identify what motivates consumers to engage/interact with brands, and
examine if their motivation depends on their level of engagement, commitment or
involvement.
 RO3: Understand brand loyalty and how it r elates to involvement, commitment
and engagement.
This concluding chapter will revisit each of the sub-research objectives above by
summarising the findings of the quantitative and qualitative research simultaneously .
Subsequently, offer conclusions based on the findings. Finally, sum up and provide an answer
to the main research objective . The chapter of analysis were comprehensive and requires to be
summarised, thus the summary in this chapter. Implications of this study will be clarified before
the l imitations of the research methods will be outlined . Importantly, recommendations for
future research will be discussed to provide guidance for potential prog ressions of this study,
thus finalise this section.
5.1.1 RO1: Explore consumers’ interest in relatio nal behaviour with brands, and
uncover their responses to relationship offerings from brands.
The literature have indicated that consumers should not be forced into relationships
(Grönross, 2006 ; Fournier et. al., 1998). Furthermore, suggested that consume rs experience
annoyance when approached constantly and everywhere. Constant interaction were found to be
a source of information bombardment . Consequently, an overwhelming and negative facet
affecting consumers intention to purchase, repurchase and recomme nd a product or service
(Spenner & Freeman, 2012) . Yet, no researchers have directly investigated how consumers
respond to ROs from brands and illuminated the CBR paradox . Instead, the literature seems to

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

68
have been blinded by the immense amount of relevant research concerning RM that enlightens
the potential benefits of stro ng emotional relationships, CBR s and loyal committed consumers.
Data from the interviews indicated that consumers have negative attitude towards RO s.
Likewise, a lack of interest in rel ational behaviour with brands (Section 4.2) . Many respondents
mentioned the feeling of being bombarded with marketing messages and a receiver of much
unrequested information. The interviews though importantly revealed that the numb er of RO s
have a clear an d strong influence in terms of how the respondents react towards ROs. Well
targeted RO s may have a limited positive effect, primarily including the opportunity to exploit
a great offer. Nonetheless, the effects are identified as mostly negative. They are generally
regarded as capable of affecting BBL, ABL and ITR negatively .
The quantitative findings support these propositions and provide much stronger
empirical evidence to support the claims. Statistical tests confirmed that th e number of RO s
negatively a ffect the impact of ROs on the respondents BBL, ABL and ITR respective ly. Here,
clearly showcasing RO s potentially negative impact on consumers BBL, ABL and ITR.
Investigations related to the level of commitment and involvement were quite broad in
the int erviews, owing to the ir explorative nature. P rimarily , respondents did though not depict
high level of attachment to brands . As such, it showed a potential connection between the
respondents lack of interest in forming brand relationships and their corresp ondingly low levels
of attachment. Importantly, the quantitative analyses identified a statistically significant
association between the respondent’s low levels of commitme nt, engagement and involvement .
Thus indicating a limited interest in relational be haviour with brands among the respondents.
Hereby establishing that far from everyone shares the Millennials interest in brands and their
willingness to engage and form relationships with brands. Consequently, adds support to the
claim that a large amount of people is not interested in having relationships with brands. This
strongly supports findings presented by CEB suggesting that only 20 % are willing to engage
in relationships with brands (Section 1.1).
5.1.2 RO2: Identify what motivates consumers to e ngage/interact with brands, and
examine if their motivation depends on their level of engagement, commitment or
involvement.
The qualitative and quantitative findings were highly similar in terms of identifying the
most significant types of motivation for engaging with brands. The qualitative interviews
broadly found that respondents primarily engage with brands to get discounts or customer

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

69
service. Similarly, descriptive analyses from the quantitative findings identified customer
service, making a purchase and getting discounts as the three most important types of
motivation. Oppositely, feeling connected to the brand and being part of a community were
identified as the two least important types of motivation.
These findings were largely consistent with th e findings obtained through the literature
review (Spenner & Freeman, 2012) . CEB suggested that consumer’s willingness to engage in
brand relationships is a myth and that engagement in brand relationships is merely a means of
getting discounts. Importantly , the findings ads support to the previous finding that consumers
are not interested in relational behaviour with brands, albe it no statistical support were given
for this claim. For the respondents , brand engagement is arguably not motivated by the
possib ility of having a relationship with a brand.
It was learned during the interviews that most respondents have rather low levels of
engagement. Many respondents had a rather negative attitude towards being engaged by brands,
therefore also displayed a lacki ng interest themselves in engaging with brands. When
interacting/engaging with brands, the motivations for doing so were largely self -beneficial
reasons as getting customer service or discounts. Even those who depicted certain levels of
engagement or attac hment to brands identified similar types of motivations for
interacting/engaging with brands.
When RQ1, RQ2 and RQ3 were answered, descriptive analyses revealed that the prime
motives for engaging with brands were not dependent on the consumer’s level of engagement,
commitment or involvement. Respondents with high levels of involvement, commitment or
engagement perceived the same type of motivations as important and unimportant as those with
low levels did. Thus, indicating that generally consumers do not engage/interact with brands to
get closer or to build a relationship wit h them. Their reasons are simple and self -oriented rather
than concerned with relationship building, even those who are committed, involved or engaged
with a brand.
5.1.3 RO3: Unders tand brand loyalty and how it relates to involvement, commitment
and engagement.
It was discovered during the literature review that the emo tional aspects related to brand
relationships are instrumental for relationship quality (Section 2.4). Consequently, these aspects
were explored in the interviews .

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

70
The qualitative interviews revealed that the respondents who did perceive themselves
as loyal, essentially were not truly loyal. Their loyalty were primarily driven by price , and
several examples showed that their loyalty were fragile and weak. Therefore, their level of
brand loyalty were arguably not high. Moreover , respondents largely agreed that a brand
relationship is a stage beyond brand loyalty i.e. something that truly requires a strong emotional
bond. An emotional bond whic h the respondents did not have. Thus, suggesting limited interest
in forming relationships with brands and being loyal to them .
Considering this, it was quite unsurprising that involvement, commitment and
engagement were found to be statistical ly significant predictors of the level of brand loyalty .
Particularly considering that involvement and commitment in the literature had been identified
as sources of brand loyalty. Likewise, it underlines the prominence and relevance of the thr ee
variables in this context. Consequently , identifies a strong connection between brand loyalty
and the three variables. Considering the low levels of commitment, engagement and
involvement , it suggests that consumers are not highly loyal. Thus, additiona lly supports the
notion that consumers are not interested deep emot ional relationships with brands. Moreover,
relates to findings from Accenture (2011)suggesting limited loyalty and increased brand
switching among consumers and CEB’s (2012) indications tha t considerable few are interested
in relationships with brands (Section 1.1). Particularly when considering that commitment and
engagement were measured in relation to brands the respondents like.
5.2 Implications
Certainly, the results indicate that many consumers are unwilling and uninterested in
forming relationships with brands. The respondents depicted low levels of engagement,
involvement and commitment. These were confirmed as important sources of brand loyalty,
thus highly important and critical v ariables. According to data, the responses to ROs are
negative and consumers seem to interact with brands for simple and self -beneficial reasons .
Overall, every analysis leads to the conclusion that consumers are largely uninterested in having
relationship s with bra nds. Knowing the central concept of RM and the immense focus on
exactly relationship building in the literature , everything suggest that the current marketing
philosophy and literature fails to consider the lacking interest consumers have in exac tly
relationships. It is paradoxical to have a marketing theory that is based on relationship building,
when a significant portion of consumers does not want to engage in relationships.

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

71
Consequently, marketers may need to adapt their belief of how consume rs think of
brands. If marketers believe that their brand have a special place in the heart of their consumers,
it is arguably a mistake . Many consumers are not strongly committed, engaged or involved with
brands . These results suggests not even committed or engaged with brands of their liking.
Therefore, the central concept in RM building and maintaining long -term relationships , does
not apply to all consumers. Simply, marketers must realise that not all customers are willing or
receptive to brand relation ships. In this context, consider the potentia l implications that RO s
can have o n consumers BBL, ABL and ITR. Thus, understand that the attempt to build
relationships may provide counterproductive outcomes.
None of this data questions the instrumental imp ortance of a strong CBR. A strong
relationship is unarguably beneficial in many ways. Nevertheless, marketers have to ask
themselves if relationships instead could be built by not excessively trying to force people into
one? It is important to understand t hat the level of intimacy marketing academic s seem to
associate with CBR s is not a level of intimacy consumers have or associate with brands.
Marketers are therefore recommended to get accustomed to the idea that customers may not
like brands as much as th ey think, thus not be receptive to marketing methods based on
relationship building.
Consequently, marketers should diversify their marketing and efforts based on the
realisation that not all customers can be managed as relationships and without consequen ces be
forced into one. This requires an acknowledgement of the belief that ever-increasing marketing
bombardments cause cognitive overload . Marketing bombardments have slowly changed
consumers’ perception towards interacting and having relationships with brands . Ultimately
meaning that the attempt to build relationships may instead drive brands further away from
customers and potential beneficial relationships. Nonetheless, it is critical to remember the
essential consumers that will require opportunities to have a strong relationship. Thus,
underlines the need for diversifying marketing thinking and strategies.
5.3 Limitations of R esearch
Although this study has reached its aims, it has, as any study, some obvious limitations.
Firstly, and as a consequenc e of resource and financial constraints, this study had to be limited
geographically to only include Danish consumers.
In addition, the lack of a probabilistic sampling technique for the questionnaire means
that any generalisations and results must be tak en with circumspection. Nevertheless, it is

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

72
critical to point out that since an accurate and new sampling frame were unavailable, selecting
the preferable option of a probabi listic sample were impossible. It is likewise critical to note
that the size of th e sample determines the extent of which one can appropriately generalise.
While 270 is an acceptable size, it not remarkably large . Both limitations means that the
generalizability of these results must be read with circumspection. Still, this study has ga thered
both qualitative and quantitative data that provide supportive findings. Deriving, the study is
still evaluated to provide value to the literature by illuminating a potentially big and rather
unexplored issue within the marketing literature that may lay the ground work for further
investigations.
The judgemental/purposive sample for the interviews are known to create bias,
nevertheless is by far the easiest and least time -consuming way of selecting a sample.
Considering th e huge task of undertaking b oth qualitative and quantitative investigations, these
was seen as a necessity. Considering the different goals and objectives of an explorative
interview in terms of generalizability, this can be accepted. Nonetheless, the interviews are also
used as an a dditional source of evidence as it was selected to compare the quantitative and
qualitative findings in order to way up the deficiencies of both research methods and
particularly provide supporting evidence to the quantitative findings.
5.4 Suggestions fo r Further R esearch
A highly interesting opportunity for further research could be to expand the study to
include several European countries . Hence, investigate the extent to whi ch consumers are
affected by RO s and interested in relational behaviour with b rands across cultures. In this way,
make a cross -cultural comparative study. Culture is known to have a major impact on consumer
behaviour, thus gives encouragement to such a study.
Similarly, a study, as the above -mentioned, within a specific section/se ctor could be of
high relevance to the current literat ure. While the purpose of this study were to identify an
overall potential issue of focu sing on relationships, researchers could for good reasons choose
to look at the impact within a certain sector suc h as fast -moving -consumer -goods, electronics,
clothing or banking. The results are likely to vary across sectors and people’s interest in
relational behaviour with brands and in RO s may depend significantly on the type of product
and brands. Consequently, a thorough investigation between low – and high involvement
products could be another potential avenue to seek out.

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

73
A central decision in this project was to treat the subject generically and adopt a
complete customer -focus. Consequently, the study is the oretical of nature and based on what
the literature states about forging customer relationships . This is the foundation for comparisons
with the empirical research gathered in this study, concerning consumers and their interest in
relational behaviour with brands. A great opportunity for further research is therefore to
compare the individual marketing practices i.e. CRM activities , in certain companies or in a
certain industry , with consumers’ response to these activities and interest in relational
behavio ur. In this way, get a deeper insight into exactly how the different type of marketing
activities, attempting to build CBR s, are received by consumers’. This would be more
challenging as it would require in -depth insight into different companies marketing practices,
thus require interviews with numerous marketing managers.

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

74
References
Aaker, D. A. (1991). Managing brand equity: Capitalizing on the value of a brand name . New
York: Free Press.
Aaker, D. A. (1996). Building strong brands . New York: Free Press.
Aaker, J., Fournier, S., & Brasel, S. (2004). When Good Brands Do Bad. Journal of Consumer
Research , 31(1), 1 -16.
Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of Brand Personality. Journal of Marketing Research , 34(3),
347-357.
Abber, C. (n.d.) Are People Immune To Traditional Marketing [Article]. Retrieved July 30,
2014 from http://us.mediaplanet.com/usnews/second -edition/are -people -immune -to-
traditional -marketing
Accenture . (2011 ). Global Consumer Research Study: The New Realities of "Dating" in the
Digital Age. (January). Retrieved July 15, 2014 , from http://www.accenture.com/us –
en/Pages/insight -acn-global -consumer -research -study.aspx
Aggarwal, P. (2004). The Effects Of Brand Relationship Norms On Consumer Attitudes And
Behavior. Journal of Cons umer Research , 31(1), 87 -101.
Ahluwalia, R., Burnkrant, R. E., & Unnava, H. R. (2000). Consumer Response to Negative
Publicity: The Moderating Role of Commitment. Journal of Marketing Research , 37(2), 203 –
214.
Algesheimer, R. Dholakia, M. U., & Herrmann, A . (2005). The Social Influence of Brand
Community: Evidence From European Car Clubs . Journal of Marketing , 69(3), 19 -34
American Marketing Association (2013, July). Definition of Marketing . Retrieved June 9, 2014,
from https://www.ama.org/AboutAMA/Pages/De finition -of-Marketing.aspx
Anderson, E. W., & Sullivan, M. W. (1993). The Antecedents And Consequences Of Customer
Satisfaction For Firms. Marketing Science , 12(2), 125 -143.
Andreassen , T . W . and Lindestad , B . ( 1998 ) ‘ Custom er loyalty and complex se rvices’ ,
International Journal of Servi ce Industry Management , 9(1), 7-23 .
Arnould, E., & Thompson, C. (2005). Consumer Culture Theory (CCT): Twenty Years Of
Research. Journal of Consumer Research , 31(4), 868 -882.
Back, K. (2003). A Brand Loyalty Model I nvolving Cognitive, Affective, and Conative Brand
Loyalty and Customer Satisfaction. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research , 27(4), 419 –
435.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1975). Marketing as Exchange. Journal of Marketing , 39(4), 32.
Bair, B. (2008, June 1). Attracti ng Millennials to Meetings | CME Regs content from
MeetingsNet . Retrieved June 7, 2014, from
http://meetingsnet.com/medicalmeetings/cme _rules_regs/meetings_rule_cool/
Ballester, E. D., & Aleman, J. L. (2005). Does brand trust matter to brand equity. Journa l of
Product & Brand Management , 14(3), 287 -296.

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

75
Bansal, H., Irving, G. and Taylor, S . (2004 ) ‘ A three -component model of customer
commitment to service providers ’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science , 32(3), 234 –
250 .
Barnes, J. G. (2000), “Cl oseness in Customer Relationships: Examining the Payback from
Getting Closer to the Customer”, in Relationship Marketing: Gaining Competitive Advantage
through Customer Satisfaction and Customer Retention , T. Hennig -Thur au and U. Hansen
(editors), 89-105, Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Beatty, S., E. , & Talpade, S. (1994). Adolescent Influence in Family Decision Making: A
Replication with Extension . Journal of Consumer Research , 21(2), 332 -341.
Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions And The Extended Self. Journal of Consumer Research , 15(2),
139.
Bell, J. (2010). Doing your research project: A guide for first -time researchers in education,
health and social science . Maidenhead: McGraw -Hill Open University Press.
Bengtsson A. (2003). Towards a critique of brand relati onships. Advances in Consumer
Research , 30, 154 -154.
Berelowith, M (2013, October 2). Absolut, Johnnie Walker aim to inspire Generation Go [Blog
post]. Retrieved June 7, 2014, from http://www.jwtintelligence.com/2013/10/absolut -johnnie –
walker -aim-inspiregeneration/#axzz2vsC1SQus
Berry, L. (1983). “Relationship Marketing”, in Berry, L. Shostack, G. and Upah, G. (editors),
Emerging Perspect ives in Services Marketing , American Mark eting Association, Chicago, IL.
Berry, L.L. (2000), “Cultivating service brand equity”, Academy of Marketing Science , 28(1),
128-37.
Bilgrim, V., Bartl, M., & Biel, S. (2011). Successful consumer co -creation; the ca se of Nivea
body care. Marketing Review St Gallen , 28, 34-42.
Black, K. (2014). Business Statistics: For Contemporary Decision Making (8th ed.). Wiley &
Sons, Incorporated, John.

Blessing, L., & Chakrabarti, A. (2009). DRM, a design research methodology . Dordrecht:
Springer.

Bloom, B. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives; the classification of educational goals .
New York: Longmans, Green.

Bolton, R. N. (1998). A Dynamic Model of the Duration of the Customer's Relationship with a
Continuous Service Provider: The Role of Satisfaction. Marketing Science , 17(1), 45 -65.
Boote, D., & Beile, P. (2005). Scholars Before Researchers: On The Centrality Of The
Dissertation Literature Review In Research Preparation. Educational Researcher , 34(6), 3 -15.
Breuer, P ., & Spillecke, D. (2010, December). What consumers want tomorrow [Report].
Retrieved June 7, 2014, from
http://csi.mckinsey.com/knowledge_by_region/europe _africa_middle_east/germanconsumer
Burstein, D. (2013). Fast future: How the millennial generation is shaping our world . Boston:
Beacon Press.

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

76
Busacca, B. and Castaldo, S. (2003), “ Brand knowledge, brand trust and consumer response:
a conceptual framework ”, 2nd workshop “Trust within and between organizations”, special
session “Trust in marketing”, Amsterdam, 23 -24 October.
Cammorata, N. (2013). Words you should know, 2013: The 201 words from science, politics,
technology, and pop culture that will change your life this year . Avon, Mass: Adams Media.
Carroll, B. A., & Ahuvia, A. C. (2006). Some Antecedents And Outcomes Of Brand Love.
Marketing Letters , 17(2), 79 -89.
Chaudhuri, A., & Holbrook, M. B. (2001). The Chain Of Effects From Brand Trust And Brand
Affect To Brand Performance: The Role Of Brand Loyalty. Journal of Marketing , 65(2), 81 –
93.
Chernatony, L. d. (1999). Brand Management Through Narrowing The Gap Between Brand
Identity And Brand Reputation. Journal of Marketing Management , 15(1-3), 157 -179.
Chiou, J. (2006). Service Quality, Trust, Specific Asset Investment, and Expertise: Direct and
Indirect Effects in a Satisfaction -Loyalty Framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science , 34(4), 613 -627.
Churchill, G. A., & Lacobucci, D. (2010). Market ing research: Methodological foundations.
Mason: South -Western Cengage Learning.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale,
N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Cooper, W. H . and Withey , M . J. (1989). ‘ Predict ing exit, voice loyalty, and neglect ’,
Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 12 -14 .
Corporate Executive Board (2012, May 8). CEB – Press Release | What the Best Companies
Do™ . Retrieved June 7, 2014, from
http://ir.executiveboard.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=113226&p=irol –
newsArticle&ID=1692938&highlight
Cosic, M., & Djuric, M. (2010). Relationship Marketing in the Tourist Services Sector. UTMS
Journal of Eco nomics , 1(1), 53 -60.
Cousin, G. (2009). Strategies for researching learning in higher education: An introduction to
contemporary methods and approaches . London: Routledge
Delgado -Ballester, E., & Munuera -Alemán, J. L. (2001). Brand trust in the context of
consumer loyalty. European Journal of Marketing , 35(11/12), 1238 -1258.
Dick, A. S. & Basu, K. (1994). ‘ Customer loyalty: Toward an integrated conceptual
framework’, Journal of Academy of Marketing Science , 22(2), 99 -113.
Dijk, J. V., Antonides, G., & Schi llewaert, N. (2014). Effects of co -creation claim on consumer
brand perceptions and behavioural intentions. International Journal of Consumer Studies ,
38(1), 110 -118.
Diller, H. (2000), “Customer Loyalty : Fata Morgana or Realistic Goal? Managing
Relation ships with Customers”, in Relationship Marketing: Gaining Competitive Advantage
through Customer Satisfaction and Customer Retention , T. Hennig -Thur au and U. Hansen
(editors), 29-48, Berlin, Germany: Springer.

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

77
Dowling, G. (2002). Customer Relationship Ma nagement: In B2C Markets, Often Less Is More.
California management review , 44(3), 87 -104.
Drolet, A. (2002). Inherent Rule Variability in Consumer Choice: Changing Rules for Change's
Sake. Journal of Consumer Research , 29(3), 293 -305.
Drucker, P. F. (1985 ). Innovation and entrepreneurship: Practice and principles . New York:
Harper & Row.
Durgee, J. (1988). Understanding brand personality. The Journal of Consumer Marketing , 5(3),
21-25.
Egan, J. (2008). Relationship marketing: Exploring relational strategie s in marketing (3rd ed.).
Harlow, England: Financial Times Prentice Hall.
Escalas, J. , & Bettman, J. (2005). Self -Construal , Reference Groups, and Brand Meaning.
Journal of Consumer Research , 32(3), 378 -389.
Farr, A., & Hollis, N. (1997). What do you want your brand to be when it grows up: big and
strong. Journal of Advertising Research , 37(6), 23 -36.
Fill, C. (2009). Marketing communications: Interactivity, communities and content (5th ed.).
Harlow: FT, Prentice Hall.
Foster, B.D. & Cadogan, J.W. (2000). R elationship selling and customer loyalty: an empirical
investigation. Marketing Intelligence & Planning , 18(4), 185 -199.
Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers And Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory In
Consumer Research. Journal of Consumer Research , 24(4), 343 -353.
Fournier, S., & Yao, J. L. (1997). Reviving brand loyalty: A reconceptualization within the
framework of consumer -brand relationships. International Journal of Research in Marketing ,
14(5), 451 -472.
Fournier, S., Dobscha, S., & Mick, D. (1998) . Preventing the Premature Death of Relationship
Marketing. Harvard Business Review , 76, 42-51.
Freeman, K., Spenner, P., & Bird, A. (2012, May 23). Three Myths about What Customers
Want – Harvard Business Review . Retrieved June 7, 2014, from
http://blogs.hbr.org/2012/05/three -myths -about -customer -eng/
Fromm, J., & Garton, C. (2013). Marketing to millennials: Reach the largest and most
influential generation of consumers ever . New York: Barkley Inc.
Fullerton, G. (2005). The Impact of Brand Commitment on Loyalty to Retail Service Brands.
Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences / Revue Canadienne des Sciences de
l'Administration , 22(2), 97 -110.
Füller, J. (2010). Virtual Co -Creat ion of New Products and its Impact on Consumers' P roduct
and Brand Relationships. California Management Review , 98-122.
Garbarino, E. and Johnson, M.S. (1999), “The different roles of satisfaction, trust, and
commitment in customer relationships”, Journal of Marketing , 63, 70-87.
Gerrish, K., & Lacey, A. (2010). The research process in nursing (6th ed.). Oxford: Blackwell
Pub.

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

78
Goldhor, H. (1972). An introduction to scientific research in librarianship . Urbana, Ill.:
University of Illinois, Graduate School o f Library Science.
Gordon, F. (2003) 'When does commitment lead to loyalty?' Journal of Service Research , 5(4),
333–344.
Gordon, M., Mckeage, K., & Fox, M. (1998). Relationship marketing effectiveness: The role
of involvement. Psychology and Marketing , 15(5), 443 -459.
Grehan, M. (2013). From Search to Social: Marketing to the Connected Consumer . Wiley &
Sons Canada, Limited, John.
Grönroos, C. (1994). From Marketing Mix to Relationship Marketing: Towards a Paradigm
Shift in Marketing. Management Decision , 32(2), 4 -20.
Grönroos, C. (1997). V alue driven relational marketing: From products to resources and
competencies. Journal of Marketing Management , 13(5), 407 -419.
Grönroos, C. (2001). Service management and marketing: A customer relationship
management a pproach (2nd ed.). West Sussex, England: Wiley.
Grönroos, C. (2006). On defining marketing: finding a new roadmap for marketing. Marketing
Theory , 6(4), 395 -417.
Grönroos, C. (2011). Value Co -creation In Service Logic: A Critical Analysis. Marketing
Theory , 11(3), 279 -301.
Gummesson, E. (2002). Total relationship marketing strategy moving from the 4Ps –product,
price, promotion, place –of traditional marketing management to the 30Rs –the thirty
relationships –of a new marketing paradigm (2nd ed.). Oxford: B utterworth -Heinemann.
Gummesson, E. (2003). Total relationship marketing: Marketing management, relationship
strategy and CRM approaches for the network economy (2nd ed.). Burlington: Butterworth –
Heinemann.
Gummesson, E. (2008). Total relationship marketin g (3rd ed.). Amsterdam: Butterworth –
Heinemann.
Halim, R. E. (2006). The effect of the relationship of brand trust and brand affect on brand
performance: An analysis from brand loyalty perspective – A case of coffee instant product in
Indonesia. Retrieved N ovember 10, 2014, from http://ssrn.com/abstract=925169
Hallowell , R. (1996). ‘ The relationships of customer satisfaction, customer loyalty, and
profi tability: An empirical study’ , International Journal of Service Industry Management 7(4),
27 – 42 .
Harris Interactive (2011). Customer Experience Impact Report – Getting to the Heart of the
Consumer and Brand Relationship . Retrieved June 10, 2014, from
http://www.oracle.com/us/products/applications/cust -exp-impact -report -epss-1560493.pdf
Harris, L., & Goode , M. (2004). The Four Levels Of Loyalty And The Pivotal Role Of Trust:
A Study Of Online Service Dynamics. Journal of Retailing , 80(2), 139 -158.
Havas Media (2013). Meaningful brands | Havas Media . Retrieved June 8, 2014, from
http://www.havasmedia.com/meaningful -brands

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

79
Hollebeek, L. D. (2011a). Exploring customer brand engagement: definition and themes.
Journal of Strategic Marketing , 19(7), 555 -573.
Hollebeek, L. D. (2011b). Demystifying custome r brand engagement: Exploring the loyalty
nexus. Journal of Marketing Management , 27(7 -8), 785 -807.
Houston, F. S., & Gassenheimer, J. B. (1987). Marketing and Exchange. Journal of Marketing ,
51(4), 3 -18.
Hunt, S. D. (1976). The Nature and Scope of Marketi ng. Journal of Marketing , 40(3), 17 -28.
Jackson, B. B. (1985). “Build Customer Relationships that Last”, Harvard Business Review,
120-128 & 369-391, Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Jacoby, J., & Chestnut, R. W. (1978). Brand loyalty: Measurement and management . New
York: Ronald Press, 45 -57.
Jarvis, C. B., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2003). A critical review of construct
indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research.
Journal of Consumer Research , 30(2), 199 -218.
Johnson, B. (2014). Educational research quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches
(Fifth ed.). Thousand O aks, Calif.: Sage Publications.
Johnson, M., Herrmann, A., & Huber, F. (2006). The Evolution of Loyalty Intentions. Journal
of Marketing , 70(2), 122-132.

Jones, P. (2007). The iPod and the phone: wired and mobile, characteristics of the Millennium
generation. Orion Journal of International Hotel Management , 2, 11-14.
Kanagal, Nagasimha (2009 ) “Role of Relationship Marketing in Competitive Marketi ng
Strategy”, Journal of Management and Marketing Research , Indian Institute of Management,
Bangalore
Keller, K. L. (1998). Strategic brand management: Building, measuring and managing brand
equity . Upper Saddle River, N.J: Prentice Hall.
Keller, K. L. (2001). Building customer -based brand equity: A blueprint for creating strong
brands. Cambridge, Mass: Marketing Science Institute.
Kirmani, A., Sood, S., & Bridges, S. (1999). The Ownership Effect in Consumer Responses to
Brand Line Stretches. Journal of Mar keting , 88-101.
Kothari, C. R. (2004). Research methodology: Methods & techniques (2nd ed.). New Delhi:
New Age International (P) Ltd.
Kovaleski, D. (2008, April). RU Listening? What you need to know to keep your meeting
relevant to up -and coming generatio ns, Association Meetings , 26-32.
Kim, S. S., Scott, D. and Crompton, J. L. (1997) . 'An exploration of the relationships among
social psychological involvement, behavioural involvement, commitment and future intentions
in the context of bird watching', Journal of Leisure Research , 23, 320 –341.
Kleine, S. S., Iii, R. E., & Allen, C. T. (1995). How Is A Possession "Me" Or "Not Me"?
Characterizing Types And An Antecedent Of Material Possession Attachment. Journal of
Consumer Research , 22(3), 327.

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

80
Krasnikov, A., Jayachandran, S., & Kumar, V. (2009). The Impact of Customer Relationship
Management Implementation on Cost and Profit Efficiencies: Evidence from the U.S.
Commercial Banking Industry. Journal of Marketing , 73(6), 61 -76.
Kristensson, P., Matthing, J., & J ohansson, N. (2008). Key strategies for the successful
involvement of customers in the co -creation of new technology -based services. International
Journal of Service Industry Management , 19(4), 474 -491.
Kumar, V., Shah, D., & Venkatesan, R. (2006). Managin g retailer profitability one customer at
a time!. Journal of Retailing , 82(4), 277 -294.
Kuusik, A. (2007). Affecting customer loyalty: Do different factors have various influences in
different loyalty levels? Tartu: University of Tartu, Faculty of Economic s and Business
Admini stration.
Lee, J., & Lee, H. (2013). Does satisfaction affect brand loyalty? Academy of Marketing Studies
Journal , 17(2), 133 -147.
Lindberg -Repo, K., & Grönroos, C. (2004). Conceptualising communications strategy from
a relational per spective. Industrial Marketing Management , 33(3), 229 -239.
Lowe, B., Ward, S., Winzar, H., & Zikmund, W. G. (2007). Marketing Research: Asia Pacific
Edition . (Marketing Research: Asia Pacific Edition.) Cengage Learing Australia.
Lu Ting Pong, J. & Tang Pui Yee, E. (2001 ) ‘ An inte grated model of service loyalty’ , Academy
of Business & Administrative Sciences 2001 International Conferences , Brussels, Belgium held
on 23rd – 25th July, 2001 .
Macnee, C. L., & McCabe, S. (2008). Understanding nursing research: Using research in
evidence -based practice (2nd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott
Williams & Wilkins.
Matzler, K., Grabner -Kruter, S., & Bidmon, S. (2008). Risk aversion and brand loyalty: the
mediating role of brand trust and brand a ffect. Journal of Product & Brand Management , 17(3),
154-162.
MAXIM, Andrei (2009) “Relationship Marketing –A New Paradigm in Marketing Theory and
Practice ”, Analele Stiinłifice ALE Universităłii “Alexandru Ioan Cuza” Din Iasi, Tomul LVI
Stiin Ńe Economice, 2009 university Press, Tartu 51009, Estonia, www.tyk.ee
McDaniel, C. D., Gates, R. H., & McDaniel, C. D. (2002). Market ing research: The impact of
the Internet (5th ed.). Cincinnati, Ohio: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Melewar, T.C., and Saunders, J. (1999). International corporate visual identity: standardization
or localization ? Journal of International Business Studies , 30(3) , 583 -98.
Miles, M., Huberman, A., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis a methods
sourcebook (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, California: Sage Publications.
Mittal, B. & Lee, M -S. (1989). A causal model of consumer involvement. Journal of Economic
Psycho logy, 10, 363 -389.
Mittal, V., & Kamakura, W. A. (2001). Satisfaction, Repurchase Intent, And Repurchase
Behavior: Investigating The Moderating Effect Of Customer Characteristics. Journal of
Marketing Research , 38(1), 131 -142.

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

81
Mizik, N., & Jacobson, R. (20 03). Trading Off Between Value Creation and Value
Appropriation: The Financial Implications of Shifts in Strategic Emphasis. Journal of
Marketing , 67(1), 63 -76.
Mohammad, A. A. S. (2012). The effect of brand trust and perceived value in building brand
loyalty. International Research Journal of Finance and Economics , 85, 111 -126.
Mooi, E., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). A concise guide to market research the process, data, and
methods using IBM SPSS statistics . Berlin: Springer.
Morgan, G., Leech, N., Gloeckner, G., & Barrett, K. (2013). IBM SPSS for introductory
statistics: Use and interpretation (5th ed.). New York: Routledge.
Morgan, R., & Hunt, S. (1994). The Commitment -Trust Theory of Relationship Marketing.
Journal of Marketing , 58(3), 20 -38.
Murchison, J. (201 0). Chapter 5 – A guide to collecting data and taking notes . In Ethnography
essentials: Designing, conducting, and presenting your research. San Francisco: Jossey -Bass.

Nakhleh , Haitham . M.A. (2012) . “The Relationship Between Customer Relationship Marketi ng
Tactics, Relationship Quality and Customer’s Loyalty in Mobile Communication Industry”,
Academic Research International , 3(2).
Nguyen, B. (2012). The dark side of customer relationship management: Exploring the
underlying reasons for pitfalls, exploitat ion and unfairness. Journal of Database Marketing &
Customer Strategy Management , 19(1), 56 -70.
Nunnally, J.C. (1994). Psychometric Theory (3d ed). New York: McGraw -Hill.
Ogba, I., & Tan, Z. (2009). Exploring the impact of brand image on customer loyalty a nd
commitment in China. Journal of Technology Management in China , 4(2), 132 -144.
O’guinn, T. C. & Muñiz, A. M. (2009): “collective brand relationships” in D. J. Macinnis, C.
W. Park & J. R. Priester (Eds.), Handbook of relationships . New York: M.E. Sharpe
Oliver, R. L. (1999). Whence Consumer Loyalty ? Journal of Marketing , 63(4), 33 -44.
Parasuraman, A. & Grewal, D. (2000). The impact of technology on the quality -value -loyalty
chain: A research agenda. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science , 28(1), 168 -174.
Parasuraman, A., Valarie A. Zeithaml, and Leonard L. Berry. (1994). Alternative Scales for
Measuring Service Quality. Journal of Retailing , 70, 201 –30.
Park, C. W., Macinnis, D. J., & Priester, J. R. (2006). Brand Attachment: Constructs,
Consequences , and Causes. Foundations and Trends in Marketing , 1(3), 191 -230.
Park, C. W., MacInnis,D. J. & Priester, J. R. (2009): “Research directions on strong brand
relationships” in D. J. Macinnis, C. W. Park & J.R. Priester (Eds.), Handbook of brand
Relationship s. New York: M.E. Sharpe
Park, S. H. (1996). Relationships between involvement and attitudinal loyalty constructs in
adult fitness programs. Journal of Leisure Research , 28(4), 233 -250.
Payne, A., & Frow, P. (2013). Strategic customer management: Integrati ng relationship
marketing and CRM . New York: Cambridge University Press.
Peelen, E. (2005). Customer relationship management . Harlow, England: FT Prentice Hall.

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

82
Pender, L. (1999). Marketing management for travel and tourism . Cheltenham: Stanley
Thornes (Pu blishers) Ltd.
Pitney, W., & Parker, J. (2009). Qualitative research in physical activity and the health
professions . Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance .
New York: Free P ress.
Prahalad, C., & Ramaswamy, V. (2000). Co -opting customer competence. Harvard Business
Review , 1, 79-87.
Prahalad, C., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co -creation Experiences: The Next Practice In Value
Creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing , 18(3), 5 -14.
Quester, P., & Lim, A. L. (2003). Product involvement/b rand loyalty: is there a link? Journal
of Product & Brand Management , 12(1), 22 -38.
Ramaswamy, V., & Prahalad, C. (2000). Co -opting customer competence. Harvard Business
Review , 1, 79-87.
Ravald, A., & Grönroos, C. (1996). The Value Concept And Relationship Marketing. European
Journal of Marketing , 30(2), 19 -30.
Reast, J. D. (2005). Brand trust and brand extension acceptance: the relationship. Journal of
Product & Brand Management , 14(1), 4 -13.
Reichhe ld, F. F. (1996). Learning from customer defections. Harvard Business Review , 74(2),
56-67.
Remler, D. K., & Van, R. G. (2011). Research methods in practice: Strategies for description
and causation . Thousand Oaks, Calif: SAGE Publications.
Richey, R. C., & Klein, J. D. (2007). Design and development research . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Rubin, H., & Rose, K. (2013). Return on relationship . Tate Pub & Enterprises Ll.
Șahin, A., Zehir, C., & Kitapçı, H. (2011). The Effects of Brand Experiences, Trust and
Satisfaction on Building Brand Loyalty; An Empirical Research On Global Brands. In The
Proceedings of 7th International Strategic Management Conference, Procedia – Social and
Behavioral Sciences , 24, 1288 -1301.
Sawhney, M., Verona, G ., & Prandelli, E. (2005). Collaborating To Create: The Internet As A
Platform For Customer Engagement In Product Innovation. Journal of Interactive Marketing ,
19(4), 4 -17.
Schmitt, G. (2008, October). Reaching the next Boomer wave: Their kids , DealerNews , 66.
Sekaran, U. (1996). Research Methods for Business (3rd ed). John Wiley & Sons, New York,
NY.
Sheth, J., & Parvatiyar, A. (2001). Evolving Relationship Marketing Into A Discipline. Journal
of Relationship Marketing , 1(1), 3 -16.
Sheth, J. N., & Parvatly ar, A. (1995). Relationship Marketing In Consumer Markets:
Antecedents And Consequences. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science , 23(4), 255 –
271.

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

83
Shields, P. M., & Rangarajan, N. (2013). A playbook for research methods: Integrating
conceptual framework s and project management . Stillwater, OK: New Forum Press.
Shklarov, S. (2007). Double Vision Uncertainty: The Bilingual Researcher and the Ethics of
Cross -Language Research. Qualitative Health Research , 529 -538.
Shukla, P. (2010). Relationship Marketing a nd CRM, in Bidgoli, H. (ed), The Handbook of
Technology Management, Volume 2: Supply Chain Management, Marketing and Advertising,
and Global Management, Hoboken , NJ: Wiley 462 -472.
Slater, D. (1997). Consumer culture and modernity . Cambridge, UK: Polity Pr ess.
Slater, S. F., & Narver, J. C. (2000). Intelligence Generation and Superior Customer Value.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science , 28(1), 120 -127.
Slater, S. F., & Narver, J. C. (1998). Customer -led And Market -oriented: Let ’s Not Confuse
The Two . Strategic Management Journal , 19(10), 1001 -1006.
Smit, E., Bronner, F., & Tolboom, M. (2007). Brand relationship quality and its value for
personal contact. Journal of Business Research , 60(6), 627 -633.
Smothers, Norman (1993), "Can Products and Brands H ave Charisma," in Brand Equity &
Advertising. Advertising’s Role in Building Strong Brands , eds. David A. Aaker and Alexander
L. Biel, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 97 -112.
Spenner, P., & Freeman, K. (2012, May). To Keep Your Customers, Keep It Simple – Harvard
Business Review . Retrieved June 6, 2014, from http://hbr.org/2012/05/to -keep -your-customers –
keep -it-simple/ar/1
Sproull, N. (1995). Handbook of Research Methods (2nd ed), The Scarecrow Press, London.
Storbacka, K., & Lehtinen, J. (2001). Customer relationship management: Creating
competitive advantage through win -win relationship strategies . Singapore: McGraw -Hill.
Sue, V., & Ritter, L. (2007). Conducting online surve ys. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Sweidan, G., Al -Dmour, H., Zubi M.F, & Al -Dmour, R. (2012). The effect of relationship
marketing on customer Loyalty in the Jordanian pharmaceutical industry. European Journal of
Economics, Finance and Administrative Sci ences , 53,153 -172.
Tanev, S., Knudsen, M., & Gerstlberger, W. (2009). Value co -creation as part of an integrative
vision for innovation management. Open source business review online journal , 1, 1. (2012).
Taylor, S., Celuch, K., & Goodwin, S. (2004). The importance of brand equity to customer
loyalty. Journal of Product & Brand Management , 13(4), 217 – 227. Retrieved July 16, 2012,
from http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10610420410546934
Terre, B. M., Du rrheim, K., & Painter, D. (2006). Research in practice: Applied methods for
the social sciences . Cape Town: UCT Press.
Thomson, M., MacInnis, D., & Park, C. (2005). The ties that bind: measuring the strength of
consumers' emotional attachment to brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology , 15(1), 531 –
47.(2003).
Turk, E. (2011). Research methods for leisure, recreation, and tourism . Wallingford,
Oxfordshire, England: CABI.

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

84
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving To A New Dominant Logic For Marketing.
Journal of Marketing , 68(1), 1 -17.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). The Four Service Marketing Myths: Remnants of a Goods –
Based, Manufacturing Model. Journal of Service Research , 6(4), 324 -335.
Wiid, J., & Diggines, C. (2009). Marketing research. Lansdown e, Cape Town: Juta.
Woodruff, R. (1997). Customer Value: The Next Source for Competitive Advantage. Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science , 25(2), 139 -153. Retrieved May 6, 2014, from
http://dx.doi.o rg/10.1007/BF02894350
www.Statestikbanken.dk – Retrieved October 20, 2014.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Th ousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.
Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality, and Value: A Means -End
Model and Synthesis of Evidence. Journal of Marketing , 52(3), 2.
Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The Behavioral Consequences of
Service Quality. Journal of Marketing , 60(2), 31 -46.
Zins, A. H. (2001). Relative attitude s and commitment in customer loyalty models: Some
experiences in the commercial airline industry. International Journal of Service Industry
Management , 12(3), 269 -294.

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

85
Appendix 1 – Mixed method research design

-Exploration
-Knowledge
acquired through
exploration was used
to design the
quantitative
questionnaire.
-Focus on content Qualitative
exploration
(interviews)
-Provides more
reliable and
generalizable results
-Increase the
efficiency of the
qualitative research
-Focus on numbers
-Tests hypothesesQuantitative
(questionnaire)
-Validates,
interprets, clarifies
and illustrate the
quantitative findings
-Provides analytical
texture
-Potentially
strengthens the
findings
-Way up the
deficiencies of
quantitative and
qualitative data
respectivelyQualitative
(support findings)

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

86
Appendix 2 – Quota sample calculations
The data have been gathered from the Danish statistical bank: statestikbanken.dk via their
online and freely available statistics on November 10th 2014 (Appendix 3; 4; 5 )
It is important to highlight that the total population with in income and education does not fit
with the total population of males and females between 15 and 69. This owes to the fact that
the level of income or education is unknown for a certain percentage of the population.

Source: self constructed

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

87
Appendix 3 – Statistics for quota sample
Screenshot from http://www.statistikbanken.dk/ regarding the number of males and females
between 15 -69, and the number of young people (15 -29), medium aged people (30 -49) and old
people (50 -69). The data are from the third quarter of 2014. It was impossible to provide a direct
link to the source.
Translation of k eywords:
 Mænd = Men
 Kvinder=Women
 År = Year/age

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

88
Appendix 4 – Statistics for quota sample
Screenshot from http://www.statistikbanken.dk/ concerning danes highest completed
education between the age of 15 -69. Translation of keywords is provided below the tables, for
the ease of understanding.

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

89
Keywords:
 Grundskole = Primary School
 Almengymnasiel uddannelse= High school
 Erhvervsgymnasiel = High school within specific professions
 Korte videregående uddannelser = Short educations

Short education
 Erhvervsuddannelser: Profession education
 Mellemlange vidergående uddannelser= Medium length educations
 Bachelor = University bachelor degree

Medium education
 Lange vidergående uddannelser = Long educations as Master degrees
 Forskeruddannelse = Phd’s

Long education

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

90
Appendix 5 – Statistics for quota sample
Screenshot from http://www.statistikbanken.dk/ displaying number of Danes between 15 -69
within each level of income.

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

91
Appendix 6 -Questionnaire
Part I:

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

92
Part II:

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

93

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

94

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

95

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

96

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

97
Appendix 7 – Cronbach’s Alpha reliability values for summated
scales

BBL following 1 -2 RO s scale:
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha Cron bach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items N of Items
.536 .558 3

BBL following 3 -4 RO s scale:

ABL 1-2 RO s scale:
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items N of Items
.685 .686 4

ABL 3 -4 RO s scale:
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items N of Items
.843 .845 4

Intentions to recommend 1-2 RO s scale:
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items N of Items
.866 .869 4

Intentions to recommend 3 -4 RO s scale:
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items N of Items
.923 .922 4
Involvement scale:
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items N of Items
.901 .900 6
Commitment scale:
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items N of Items
.815 .814 4
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items N of Items
.690 .692 3

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

98

Engagement scale:
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items N of Items
.894 .893 6
Brand loyalty scale:
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items N of Items
.746 .750 7

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

99
Appendix 8 – Interview guide
This guide has been developed to ensure that enough information is collected abo ut the given
research problems. Hence, ensuring that each research objective can be met , while also leaving
room for the pursuit of any relevant information.
1. Can you try to explain the degree to which you like brands and whether they are
important for you?
a. If you (don’t) like brands and they are (not) important for you, what kind of
attachm ent do you feel you have with brands?
b. How do you feel that this is connected to your level of interest in brands?
c. Considering that you are (not) interested in brands, do you recommends brands
or advice against brands?
2. Can you try to explain how you fee l about the attempts brands make to get you as a
loyal customer?
a. Is it something you notices, ignores, like or maybe something that annoys you?
Ask for examples.
b. What can the implications of this be? Positive as well as negative implications.
c. Can you tr y to explain why you are interested or uninterested in a relationship
with a brand?
3. Do you believe that these relationship offerings, for instance emails, newsletters, sales
clerks, loyalty p rograms, membership programs or any other activity that directly
attempts to build relationships with you affect you positively or negatively?
a. Explain in what way?
b. Ask for examples
c. What does this mean in relation to your intentions to purchase or repurchase a
product?
d. What does this mean in relation to your level of brand loyalty?
e. What does this mean in relation to your intentions to recommend a brand?
4. Can you try to explain ways in which you are involved with brands?
a. What is you interest or disinterest in being involved with brands?
b. Can you explain if you have any close relationship or attachment to certain
brands? How does this attachment shows itself?
c. To what degree are you actively engaging/interacting with brands for instance
online, on social media or other platforms?

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

100
d. What is your motivation for communicating with brands? What do you want to
achieve with it?
e. What is the connection, if any, between you communicating with a brand a the
likelihood that you are loyal to that brand?
5. Can you try to explain some of the positives and negatives of interacting with b rands?
a. If brands tries to communicate with you, what determines whether you perceive
that communication as positive or negative?
6. How do you see a connection between a brand interacting with you and you being loyal
to a brand?
a. What about in terms of havin g a relationship with a brand?
7. Can you try to explain what a relationship is to you – A normal interpersonal
relationship, what defines it?
a. Can you try to compare this to your definition of a relationship with a brand?
Ask for examples.
8. What is you inter est in being loyal to brands?
a. Are you loyal to some brands? Examples.
b. Explain your interest or disinterest for having a relationship with a brand?
c. How do you see the connection between being loyal to a brand and also having
a relationship to that same b rand?
d. Elaborate on the differences or similarities between being loyal to a brand and
having a relationship with a brand if needed.

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

101
Appendix 9 -Interview transcripts
Transcript Anja:
Interviewer: Can you try to explain the degree to which you like brands and whether they are
important for you?
Anja: I think that brands are important, because without them I would not be able to know what
products stand for. I don’t think about brands in my every day , I think I more shop without
really thinking about what brand s stand for, but if I didn’t have just a little idea o f what they
stand, the brand I’m considering , I am sure I would not buy the ir product.
Interviewer: When you talk about what brands stand for, what are you thinking of?
Anja: For insta nce the brand Änglemark (Ecological and environmental friendly producer of
groceries) I know what they stand for. They have many products without alcohol and perfume
and therefore I buy them. Because I know that if I buy this brand my children will get som ething
good, it makes me feel safe.
Interviewer: If brands are important for you, what kind of attachment do you feel you have with
brands?
Anja: Even though I feel that brands are important, as they are good indicators of what products
stand for, I am not really closely attached to many brands. However, two brands that I feel a
very close attachment to is Änglemark which I just mentioned and the n my telephone company
Call Me.
Interviewer: How do you feel that this is connected to your level of interest in brands?
Anja: I am not really sure. But I do have a general interest in brands, of course more interest in
some than others. For me, I am most interested in the brands that makes products that I buy for
my children. That is really important for me. Fo r myself, I do not really care that much or are
interested in the brands I am buying. So I think my interest in brands is largely because of my
natural instinct as a protective mother.
Interviewer: Considering this, what are the chances that you recommend brands or advice
against brands?
Anja: The brands that I trust for my own children, those products I also recommend to my
friends or family members who have kids. But else, I don’t really recommend bra nds.

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

102
Interviewer: If you recommend or advice against brands is that only to your family or friends
or do you use the internet e.g. social media?
Anja: It is only for friends and family members. I have never written a review or posted
something about a brand online. Maybe I am a bit old fashioned in that way . I just do not want
to use my time on it because I think there so many other things I can use my time on.
Interviewer: Can you try to explain how you feel about the attempts brands make to get you as
a loyal customer? I would like to know if it is someth ing, you notices, ignores, like or maybe
something that annoys you?
Anja: If I think about my telephone company for instance, I hate when they call me. It is really
annoying and it feels like they always call me at an inconvenient moment where I don’t have
time, or want to use time on it. In general, I just hate telephone sales representatives . I would
definitely rather receive an e -mail.
Interviewer: So you like to receive newsletters?
Anja: Actually not really, I never read them but I also try to avoi d getting them, so I guess that
I do not receive that many because I really try to avoid them and if I receive something random
I just block the sender. I definitely only want to receive newsletters for a select few brands e.g.
Änglemark as I mentioned ear lier. I receive a newsletter from them but I am fine with that
because I am interested in the brand.
Interviewer: And what can the implications of receiving these relationship offers be?
Anja: If I receive something that I did not ask for, the implicatio ns will no doubt be negative.
My first action would simply be to block the information that I receive. I could still buy that
product at another time, but of course, my attitude towards that brand would definitely not be
as good as it was before. So I woul d most l ikely need more incentive to buy the brand in the
future .
But the implications can also be positive, e.g. If I say yes to receive something from a brand
that interest me e.g. Änglemark, then I can be happy about receive information from them. But
I also believe that it often happens that you say yes to receive something, but then receives more
information than you expected , but also information about all kinds of stuff that did not interest
you.
Interviewer: Can you give an example?

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

103
Anja: For ins tance, Kvickly (Supermarket chain) once gave me the opportunity to select brands
from their store that they could then send me information about. That was fine and I received
information about these brands for some time, but then as time passed I suddenly started to
receive information about a lot of the other brands that they also sell in their store. That was
seriously annoying because that was simply not what I had asked for. If I wanted to hear from
all those things, I would have asked for that.
Interv iewer: Do you believe that these relationship offerings, for instance emails, newsletters,
sales clerks, loyalty programs, membership programs or any other activity that directly attempts
to build relationships with you affect you positively or negatively?
Anja: I am not entirely sure. I think that it can be both positive and negative. It can be positive
in the sense that I can learn more about stuff that I might have an interest in. But it can also
quickly be negative if I receive more than I want or recei ve things that I don’t want at all.
Interviewer: What does this mean in relation to your intentions to purchase or repurchase a
product?
Anja: I am certain that it can affect my intentions both negatively and positively. If I’m happy
about it I might buy it more because I fall for their offers or alike or I just start to trust the brand
more after getting information about them, oppositely if a brand annoys me I might try to avoid
them or remember that when I am in the store next time.
Interviewer: And wh at about in relation to your level of brand loyalty?
Anja: In the same way as with my intentions to purchase.
Interviewer: And the last one, what about in relation to your intentions to recommend a brand?
Anja: The same again I would say. It can go both w ays.
Interviewer: Can you try to explain the degree to which you are involved with brands, if you
are?
Anja: Can you clarify what you mean by that?
Interviewer: I mean, whether you feel close to some brands and therefore follow those brands
closely?
Anja: I guess I am involved with a few brands then. I have to bring up Änglemark as an example
again. I think I am very close to this brand and follow them quite closely e.g. by receiving their

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

104
newsletter and reading about their products in the news, visiting their website once a while and
like that. However, it is probably only Änglemark and one or two additional brands I am
involved with.
To what degree are you actively engaging/interacting with brands for instance online, on social
media or other platforms ?
Anja: I basically only communicate with brands over e -mail, telephone or via. Their online chat
functions. But even that is quite rare. And I never eng age with brands on social media or read
blogs. If I have questions or problems, I usually just write an e-mail. I think that the reason I do
not communicate with brands that often is that I do not really feel that I have the time to. I have
a busy every day with a job and two kids to take care of. So I only communicate with brands if
I really have to.
Interviewer: Can you try to explain your motivations for communicating with brands, what do
you want to achieve with it?
Anja: My motivation is usually to get more information about either a product or a certain offer.
I probably often also just communicate wi th them to get discounts.
Interviewer: Do you see a connection between communicating with a brand, even though you
do not do that much, and the likelihood that you are loyal to a brand?
Anja: A strong connection yes. There is definitely a strong connecti on for me personally as I
almost only communicates with those brands that I am already a user of. So clearly, these are
also the brands that I am most loyal to. Of course sometimes I might have seen something
interesting from a brand and might want to know more and therefore communicates with them,
but it does not happen often.
Interviewer: If brands tries to communicate with you, what determines whether you perceive
that communication as positive or negative?
Anja: If there is too much irrelevant informat ion, and by irrelevant I mean information that I
did not expect to receive information about, then I will see it as negative. E.g. if I sign up to get
newsletters about new product launches but instead starts to get discount offers. Also, if I
receive comm unication material too often I will be very likely to see it as negative.
Interviewer: Could you give an example?
Anja: For instance Call Me, my phone operator, I have been a loyal customer to them in at least

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

105
10 years by now I think. Nonetheless, if th ey started to send me e -mail all the time, called me
on my phone to get me to do that and that, then I could easily see myself changing to another
operator. It would annoy me so much that I would try to look for another operator that would
not bomb me with information all the time.
Interviewer: Can you try to explain some of the positives and negatives of interacting with
brands?
Anja: On the positive side, I think that having the opportunity to communicate is great, because
there will always be situations where you would like to know something or know more about
e.g. a product. It could for instance be that you would like to know more about what kind of
natural ingredients or non -toxic chemicals that are used in certain products. For me, this is
something I am often interested in knowing because I care about my kids.
Interviewer: Can you try to explain what a relationship is to you – A normal interpersonal
relationship, what defines it?
Anja: Overall, no matter whether it is a relationship with my friends, boyfriend or kids I think
it is about love and loyalty.
Interviewer: Can you try to elaborate this?
Anja: You have to be loyal to each other in a relationship, or else you will no longer be friends
or together in the end as you might end up getting tired of each other. You bring love into every
relationship, no matter whether it is with your friends or whatever. Also honesty, you need to
be honest to each other.
Interviewer: Now, can you try to compare this to your definition of a relationship with a bran d?
Anja: I would not use the word love in connection to this kind of relationship. But I think that
regarding honesty and loyalty it is similar. I am thinking that if I am to be loyal to a brand they
also need to be honest with me. For instance my phone op erator, I do not really know anything
about how much internet I am using a month. I am not really aware of how many GB I need,
what I need for download and upload etc. but if the phone operator tell me that I need exactly
this type of subscription to 300 a month, because they can see from my bills that this is the type
of subscription that would fit my needs. In that case, I would trust that what they are telling me
is true, because they of course know much much more about this than I do. However, if I were
to find out that I actually use much less than what is part of the package that they recommended
me, then I would of course never be loyal to them again. So in that way it is about trust and

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

106
honesty as well.
Interviewer: So if you were to sum up, do you believe that these two types of relationships are
similar or different?
Anja: I do not know, I think that I would say that they are mostly different but they do have
similar points. I think it is difficult to make a connection between these two things.
Interviewer: What is so different?
Anja: It is some very diff erent feelings that you have towards your friends and family members,
the feelings are much deeper than the feelings you have in relation to having a relationship to a
brand.
Interviewer: What i s your interest in being loyal to brands?
Anja: I am interested in being loyal to brands that are able to make my life easier, but in reality
I really only think I am loyal to Änglemark and Call Me. But that is probably also because I
need to be certain ab out exactly what they are and what they stand for before being loyal to
them. Sometimes it is also just easy and convenient that you have one brand or two that you
completely trust within a category e.g. food to my children, everything is from Änglemark. A nd
it means that I don’t have to look for other brands or even consider them as long as I trust
Änglemark and they keep delivering their promises.
Interviewer: Can you try to explain why you are interested or uninterested in a relationship with
a brand?
Anja: As such, I am not interested in relationships with a brand. I just do not think that it is
worth my time to build a relationship with a brand.
Interviewer: How do you see a connection between being loyal to a brand and having a
relationship to that same brand?
Anja: I guess it depends on how you define it. If being loyal to a brand is having a relationship,
then it is connected. But I am not sure that this is the case.
Interviewer: Do you have anything to add?
Anja: I think all this about loyalty is somewhat difficult. It is not really stuff that I think about
that much. But when I think about it now I realise that I have a lot of brands that I buy often,
but brands that I do not think about. Typically small stuff as milk, butter and other food

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

107
products. For instance, I typically buy Kærgården (Danish Butter) but if I see Lurpak (Butter)
on offer, I will chose them that one time to save money.
Also I just thought of my fitness shoes. I have had Nike Air the last three years and these are
the best f itness shoes I have ever had. But I don’t feel loyal to Nike at all. The brand itself I
really do not care about – The shoes are just crazy good and I love the comfort, and that is why
I buy them. So I really do not think that I think about who has created the products, unless it is
for my children. For instance if Adidas makes an exact copy of Nike’s shoes and sells it 200
DKK cheaper, then I would just buy the shoes from Adidas , no doubt. So I am not really that
loyal you see?
If Nike for instance made a bad model of the Nike AIR shoe, I think they make a new model
every year. But if they made one bad model, then I would not buy that shoe again, I would try
to find another brand. And that is even despite that I have been happy with them for three years
now.
Interviewer: Interesting, I think that was it, thank you for your participation
Anja: You welcome, good luck with your project.
Transcript Knud:
Interviewer: Can you try to explain the degree to which you like brands and whether they are
important for you?
Knud: Well, for me personally, I do not think that brands are that important. I mean, they are
not important for me in the sense that I am not a follower or fan of any brands and I do not
support any brands. Therefore, I guess you could say that I do not like brands that much. Of
course, within different product categories I have some brands that I prefer compared to other
brands, I think that everybody has that, but I think that the brands I prefer is not because I want
to support those brands. I thi nk I just prefer them because of e.g. their good price or product
quality. It is not like I buy a brand because I really love the values of that given brand .
Interviewer: ‘Since brands are not important for you, what kind of attachment do you feel you
have with brands?
Knud: No attachment really. I do not feel close to brands in that way.
Interviewer: How do you feel that this is connected to your level of interest in brands?

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

108
Knud: Well, it is connected because my interest in brands are also only on a very limited level.
I do not follow any brands on social media or something like that, but still I often read about
brands in newspapers. Articles about companies can be quite interesting sometimes. However,
I do not read much; I think it is just the big news and the “headliners” about some of the big
brands that interest me.
Interviewer: Considering this, what are the chances that you recommend brands or advice
against brands?
Low I would say. Since I do not have a great interest in brands, they are not really a common
or natural topic of discussion for me. Therefore, I also very rarely recommend brands or advice
against them for that sake. Though, I probably advise against brands more than I recommend
brands, I think that when I have a bad experience wit h a brand I will be more likely to spread
that because I would want to try to punish that brand for causing that bad experience.
Particularly if they are unwilling to fix any given bad experience.
Interviewer: If you recommend or advice against brands is that to your family or friends or do
you use the internet e.g. social media?
I only do it to my friends or family. If I have great experience with a product I sometimes, tell
it to people I care about because I of course wish that they have a good experie nce as well. And
the same the other way around, I would also want to warn people about an bad experience. But
using the internet or social media has almost never happened. But it has a few times in rare
occasions. For instance if the product/Brand experien ce have been either extraordinarily bad or
great they I would maybe share it online. But in that case I would also do it in the hope that I
could either punish or support the brand if I feel that they deserved it. But it definitely would
have to be a speci al case.
Interviewer: Can you try to explain how you feel about the attempts brands make to get you as
a loyal customer? I would like to know if it is something, you notices, ignores, like or maybe
something that annoys you?
Knud: I definitely notices it and it definitely annoys me. You know, we live in a world where
it is so easy to send information to people, whether they want that information or not. The
problem is that when it is easy for everyone to send, it means that I as a consumer receive tons
and tons of information. Therefore, I am also extremely “careful” when I buy stuff on the
internet.

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

109
Interviewer: Can you elaborate on that?
Knud: I mean, I am careful in the sense that I try to avoid getting information from brands e.g.
newsletters. You know , today, on almost all major clothing sites for instance, you need to create
an account to be able to buy from them. And whenever you do that, they automatically assumes
that you would like to hear from that brand. So I ALWAYS remember to uncheck the “I wa nt
news” from brands, just the fact that it is automatically selected annoys me crazy much.
Interviewer: And what can the implications of this be?
Knud: First of all , I would probably just try to make sure that I don’t receive information from
them. But if they had annoyed me too much the it could also mean that I would not be likely to
select that brand in the future. Actually, I have an excellent example that just came to my mind.
Maybe a couple of months ago or so I bought different kinds of running eq uipment from Nike.
And then I actually choose to receive news from them because I think Nike has a kind of cool
brand and because I have quite a bit of clothes from them, so I thought, sure that would be nice
to hear from them once a while. Now, just last week I was searching the internet to find some
things that I wished for Christmas and I realised that it would be nice with some new running
shoes. I searches the internet and looked at many different shoes and I ended up finding two
pair of shoes at almos t the same price. One pair from Adidas and the other pair from Nike.
Which one should I choose? I was a bit in doubt, the looks and price were very similar, both
had good reviews and the quality seemed quite similar as well. I couldn’t really make a decisi on
but then I opened to check my e -mail which I hadn’t had time to check the entire weekend and
then I had 3, yes 3 e -mails in there from Nike. I was like, seriously, come on! I was already
annoyed because they had been sending me 3 times a week or so, but that was “the drop that
made the difference”. I deleted the e -mails, found a way to unsubscribe from Nike and put the
Adidas shoes on my wishlist.
Interviewer: Good example. So you were annoyed even though you had said yes to receive the
newsletter?
Knud : Yes I were, even though I actually wanted some news from them, when I signed up, I
never expected it to be that much. I do not know exactly what I expected, but definitely not
three times a week. So I might have said yes I am interested, but it does not mean yes I would
like you to spam me every week.

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

110
Interviewer: Do you believe that these relationship offerings, for instance emails, newsletters,
sales clerks, loyalty programs, membership programs or any other activity that directly attempts
to build rel ationships with you affect you positively or negatively?
Knud: No doubt negatively. I try to avoid these offerings whenever I can, but when I receive
them, they do not do much good for me. Sometimes I may exploit a great offer of or something
on sale, but I don’t get connected to these brands, so the only positive outcome may be that I
buy a great offer once a while.
Interviewer: What does this mean in relation to your intentions to purchase or repurchase a
product?
Knud: That my intentions can be affected negatively. For instance as I explain in the example
I just gave with Nike. Sometimes, as I said, it might make me inclined to buy something on
sale, but that is also it.
Interviewer: And what about in relation to your level of brand loyalty?
Knud: I gue ss the same. I am definitely also a less loyal customer to Nike today for instance. It
does not mean I will never buy any Nike product, because most of their products are great
quality, but there is a greater chance that I will chose a competing brand. I d o not see how these
things could have a positive effect on my level of brand loyalty.
Interviewer: And the last one, what about in relation to your intentions to recommend a brand?
Knud: I do not think that I would be more or less inclined to recommend a brand. I rarely
recommend brands or warn people about brands. I do not really share my experiences with
brands, good or bad, publicly. Sometimes I surely talk to friends and family members about it,
but only in rare cases if I have had some awesome or horr ible experience with a brand.
Interviewer: Can you try to explain the degree to which you are involved with brands, if you
are?
Knud: I do not feel like I am involved with brands. I do not feel close to any brands that springs
to mind. Also, since I do not consider brands that important and are not that interested in brands,
it is only logical that I do not have an interest to be involved with brands in any way.
To what degree are you actively engaging/interacting with brands for instance online, on soc ial
media or other platforms?

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

111
Knud: I communicate with brands extremely rarely. Almost never actually. The only times I
communicate with brands are when I buy products and when I have troubles or questions
regarding the given product. In that case, I alway s e-mail the brand or use their chat -function if
they have one like that. But I never do I via social media and I don’t follow brands on social
media or read and comment on company blogs or anything like that. I guess the reason is that I
do not have that much of an interest in brands
Interviewer: Can you try to explain your motivations for communicating with brands, what do
you want to achieve with it?
Knud: As I just said, when I communicate with brands it is just to buy something or to get
something fix ed. Else, if I receive news from brands it is just to exploit great offers.
Interviewer: Do you see a connection between communicating with a brand, even though you
do not do that much, and the likelihood that you are loyal to a brand?
Knud: I believe th at it can be connected, but not that it necessarily always is like that. You can
be loyal to many brands that you do not communicate with at all, but I think that those brands
that you use are also the once that you are most likely to communicate with. At least I more or
less only communicate with those brands that I am already a user of as most of the reason why
I communicate with brands is to fix some issues or maybe if I have some questions about the
product I am using. Therefore, you could say that tho se brands that I communicate with are
typically also those brands that I am a user of, which is also loyalty I assume.
Interviewer: If brands tries to communicate with you, what determines whether you perceive
that communication as positive or negative?
Knud: Well, in general, I prefer to receive a minimum of communication from companies, but
the most important aspect is how they communicate with me. For instance if I’ve accepted to
receive the information and they only send me relevant information, not t oo often, then I could
be quite satisfied with that, and it would have the result that I would probably buy their products
once a while. So in that way I could see it as something positive. But if I feel like I am over
flooded with marketing messages it wo uld have a very negative effect instead. And if I didn’t
ask for it I would almost always hate it, no matter the content.
Interviewer: Can you try to explain some of the positives and negatives of interacting with
brands?

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

112
Knud: I think it can be positive in the sense that you can get a good insight into companies and
in that way better understand their brand identity. Which I think is key if I am to relate to a
brand. So if brands are capable of creating great and compelling content, interaction can be
positive. And next time I have to buy a brand I might remember that I was happy about their
the information I received from them or remember that I read about this great thing form them.
However, oppositely, it can easily be negative if the interaction is fak e, which I often feel it is.
Interviewer: What do you mean by fake?
Knud: I mean that often it is just too easy to see right through all the advertising bullshit (sorry
for my choice of word). You know, it can just seem so fake when companies interact wit h you
because it is evident that they only do it to make me buy something. But in general I think what
annoys me the most is just when I feel that I didn’t ask for this information, when I feel that it
is thrown in my head. In those cases , it can never hav e a positive effect, rather the opposite.
Interviewer: Can you try to explain what a relationship is to you – A normal interpersonal
relationship, what defines it?
Knud: A relationship is about mutual respect and trust I would say, and also equality. What I
mean is that both parties of the relationship needs to feel that they are “equal” to the other
person in the relationship. At least for it to be a good and strong relationship. I think that strength
is a key word as well and what should define interpers onal relationships and I think that this
strength is something that comes from the respect and trust that must be in a relationship to be
good.
Interviewer: Now, can you try to compare this to your definition of a relationship with a brand?
Knud: Well, I think that these two type of relationships are very different on some key
parameters, even though they do share some similarities. To me, the major differences is that
relationships to brands are much much weaker than interpersonal relationships. What I me an is
that a relationship to a brand is something that you have one day, but may drop the other day if
someone better comes along or if you have a negative experience with a brand. I think that we
as consumers have so many opportunities today to compare pr oducts, their prices and quality
that it has become extremely difficult to be loyal. Because if it is always possible to find a
somewhat similar product or cheaper and equally good product from another brand, why in the
world would you ever continue your l oyalty or relationship to a brand?
Interviewer: Can you try to elaborate this?

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

113
Knud: Okay. Well, it is a bit complicated to explain. But I will try. What I am trying to say is
that I do not really feel like that there are many great incentives to be in r elationships with
brands today. I do not feel that brands give me something or do something that makes me want
to have a relationship with them. Unlike in an interpersonal relationship where so many great
things can come from being in a strong relationship . So I really think that a consumer -brand
relationship is very different in the sense that they are not compelling, but even if a relationship
should exist you can barely call it a relationship if the one part is so quick to drop that
relationship.
Intervi ewer: You might have talked about this a bit earlier, but what is your interest in being
loyal to brands?
Knud: I am not really interested in being loyal. This does not mean that I do not like any brands
and that I am not buying the same brands repeatedly. What I mean is that I do not buy certain
brands repeatedly because I want to support their brand or because I think that what they stand
for is great or something like that. I much more focused on the individual product that the actual
brand. To me it is all about quality versus price. Therefore, I also often change and shift between
different brands and products, so that is why I don’t think that I am real loyal to brands but also
why I am not really interest in being loyal. I am only loyal to a brand if I get something out of
it e.g. if I get a great product for a great price, then I will of course keep buying that brand. But
does that makes me interested in being loyal? I do not see it that way.
How do you see a connection between being loyal to a brand and having a relationship to that
same brand?
Knud: I think that it often is connected, but I think there is a difference in the emotional
connection. I mean, that to have a relationship with a brand you would need some kind of
stronger emotional connect ion than you would have just to be loyal to a brand. So you could
say that loyalty may be a first step whereas you later may develop a relationship and then
become a stronger loyal customer.
Interviewer: Can you try to explain why you are interested or un interested in a relationship with
a brand?
Knud: I am not interested in a relationship with a brand because I do not feel like I have to
support brands and help them. For me, brands are just something that exists to make my life
easier. And as I’ve alread y said, I’m not really a “brand animal”, I don’t care about the brand

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

114
name or reputation as long as the experience that I have with the product is excellent. It do not
have to be well known brands, not at all. And clearly, when I feel that way it also mean s that I
don’t really see a reason to have a relationship with a brand. What would it give me?
Interviewer: Do you have anything to add in the end?
Knud: No, I think I have said what I wanted to.
Interviewer: Okay. Than k you for your participation. It w as really helpful!
Knud: Happy to hear that, good luck with everything.
Transcript Kristian:
Interviewer: Can you try to explain the degree to which you like brands and whether they are
important for you?
Kristian: I think that brands are very important, both from a business perspective but also for
me personally. Brands are important indicators of what you are buying, particularly if you are
buying something from categories that you may not know a lot about. Therefore, I also believe
that brands are impo rtant and I like them in the sense that they are often a key variable that I
consider when buying a product.
Interviewer: Considering that brands are important for you, what kind of attachment do you
feel you have with brands?
Kristian: I feel attached to many brands, so I would say that I have a strong attachment to brands.
Interviewer: How does this attachment show itself?
Kristian: I think it shows itself in the way that I often recommend and advocate for the brands
that I am a proud user of. I also feel loyal and act as a loyal customer to many of these brands
so I guess that this shows my attachment pretty well.
Interviewer: How do you feel that this is connected to your level of interest in brands?
Kristian: It is clearly connected in my opinion. I have a great interest in brands, I like to know
about new product launches, cool insight information and all kinds of stuff about brands and
because I like this I am also pretty close with many brands.
Interviewer: Considering this, what are the chance s that you recommend brands or advice
against brands?

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

115
Kristian: I already mentioned that I recommend brands quite a lot but I surely also advice
against brands. I actually think that I advice against brands more often than I recommend
brands. If I have a b ad experience with brands I really just feel that people should know that
they are likely to experience problems with this brand.
Interviewer: If you recommend or advice against brands is that only to your family or friends
or do you use the internet e.g. social media?
Kristian: Mostly, it is to my friends and that but I also exploit social media to get my will. Often
you can put pressure on brands and make sure that they fix a given problem faster if you e.g.
write on their Facebook wall, because as soon as it becomes “a public” problem, brands will of
course try to solve it to avoid negative publicity. So I often use this, and then if they fix the
problem I praise them for that but if they do not they will probably pay for that with negative
publicity, d ependent on how unreasonable the problem is of course.
Interviewer: Can you try to explain how you feel about the attempts brands make to get you as
a loyal customer? I would like to know if it is something, you notices, ignores, like or maybe
something t hat annoys you?
Kristian: Well, that depends. Often I like to receive stuff from brands I like and am loyal to and
I guess I am also one of those that often “fall” for the offers because I often see it as an
opportunity to save money. E.g. by getting a mem bership card to the shop where I buy most of
my clothes or by receiving offers from brands I like on newsletters so that I know when they
have good discounts and also am aware of their latest products.
However, I do not want to receive tons of offers from brands that I am not really interested in
and have not asked to receive anything from. I can still fall for their offers sometimes, but
mostly, I do not like to receive things I have not asked for, I guess because you automatically
receive so much that yo u did not ask for.
Interviewer: And what can the implications of receiving these relationship offers be, positive
as well as negative?
Kristian: Surely it can drive be closer to the brand because I am regularly reminded about a
brand and their products. Of course this is good for a brand when I have to find a product within
a category that I may not know much about, then I will surely be likely to choose the brand that
I recognise and maybe know from another category.
Interviewer: And on the negative sid e?

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

116
Kristian: Well, I think that it can become negative if I feel like I receive things that I have not
asked for, or if I receive too much information. Like if I had to hear about the latest offers from
Elgiganten (Electronic and white goods retailer) eve ry single week it would probably ignore
me in the end. I like Elgiganten and have bought many of my electronics and white goods at
them, therefore I also want to receive information from them, but you know, how can I put it,
you know how you sometimes have a good friend or a girlfriend? You might like or love the
person, but it does not necessarily mean that you want to talk to the person every day and other
times you might feel that the person is simply just talking too much. We all need space, even
from t he things we like and are interested in.
Interviewer: Do you believe that these relationship offerings, for instance emails, newsletters,
sales clerks, loyalty programs, membership programs or any other activity that directly attempts
to build relationshi ps with you affect you positively or negatively?
Kristian: I think that they mostly affect me positively, but that they sometimes also affect me
negatively. It is a fine balance sometimes. In general, I am a pretty loyal customer to the brands
that I like and therefore I am also mostly affected positively whenever I receive any offers to
strengthen my relationship with these brands because I often want to have a strong or stronger
relationship with the brands I really like. But when I am not interested in t his, which I of course
am not interested in with all brands then I my attitude towards the given brands is also
negatively affected.
Interviewer: What does this mean in relation to your intentions to purchase or repurchase a
product?
Kristian: That my int entions to purchase can increase when I receive things from brands that I
like or when I am a member of some loyalty program. If I do not like the brand that I receive
information from it can go the other way as well, meaning that I won’t be likely to buy that
brand.
Interviewer: And what about in relation to your level of brand loyalty?
Kristian: I would say that it is exactly the same.
Interviewer: And the last one, what about in relation to your intentions to recommend a brand?
Kristian: Surely I will be likely to recommend the brands that I am closely attached to, but I
won’t recommend brands just because I have received information from brands. I recommend
brands on the basis of my own experience with their products and that, I don’t just recommend

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

117
brand because some brands sends me information about how great they are.
Interviewer: Can you try to explain the degree to which you are involved with brands, if you
are?
Kristian: I am involved with brands in the sense that I have membership cards to nume rous
shops and I also follow the brands that I like closely both online, in the news and by receiving
mails from some of them.
To what degree are you actively engaging/interacting with brands for instance online, on social
media or other platforms?
Kristi an: I engage with brands online pretty regularly. I think I mostly use Facebook as my
channel. – I comment on their status updates, give likes if I like what they have written and
sometimes makes reviews.
Interviewer: Can you try to explain your motivatio ns for communicating with brands, what do
you want to achieve with it?
Kristian: Well, I think that sometimes I communicate with brands because I want other people
to see that I like these brands, to show friends that I have good taste and like quality bra nds. So
you could say I do it to show my image. Else, I don’t really know, I guess I often also
communicate with brands just to get some help with a problem I have with a product, maybe a
defect or other issue and then I of course communicate with brands w hen I receive their offers
and discounts that I often exploit.
Interviewer: Do you see a connection between communicating with a brand and the likelihood
that you are loyal to a brand?
Kristian: Definitely, those brands that I communicate with are also t hose brands that I am most
loyal to. I do not waste my time on communicating with brands I am not interested in.
Interviewer: If brands tries to communicate with you, what determines whether you perceive
that communication as positive or negative?
Kristia n: The time, place and amount of communication I would say. Sometimes you just
receive information in what feels like inconvenient or inappropriate times and sometimes it
becomes inconvenient and annoying because you receive it all the time and everywhere you go.
But if I receive relationship offers from brands that I like, but not too often then I’m sure that I
will see it positively.

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

118
Could you give an example of an inconvenient or inappropriate time?
Kristian: For instance if I am in a hurry and then wh ile buying a product then sales clerk starts
telling about their new loyalty program or tries to sell additional products, or when you receive
a tons of mails that you did not expect or all the “personal” Facebook ads that you don’t want
to see.
Interview er: Can you try to explain some of the positives and negatives of interacting with
brands?
Kristian: I think the positive things about communicating with brands is that if can make you
feel influential or important, you can also get great insight about pro ducts that you are using
and are interested in, which of course is great.. On the negative side, you could say that it is
often something that takes up a lot of time, time that I think most people feel they have less of,
and also it can just become too muc h and you just want to get rid of the brand. You know, if
you give them you hand then they try to take your whole arm (Danish saying that relates to
being greedy).
Interviewer: Can you try to explain what a relationship is to you – A normal interpersonal
relationship, what defines it?
Kristian: A relationship is about love, support, and interest in each other. I think what is most
important is that it goes both ways, I mean that both persons love, support and are interested
equally in each other. If not, I do not think it will be a good relationship.
Interviewer: Now, can you try to compare this to your definition of a relationship with a brand?
Kristian: Well, I think that a relationship with a brand seems similar to an interpersonal
relationship on the s urface. However, it is like a relationship that has most of what a normal
relationship has but less of everything. Less love, less interest, less support. It is much more
about personal self-interest , from both sides. I want products that are great and wor ks and that
fit my image, and brands want me to be loyal to earn money.
Interviewer: What is your interest in being loyal to brands?
Kristian: I am very interested in being loyal to the brands that have great products. If their
products work excellently, then I definitely will want to be loyal to that brand. But at the
moment that they don’t work as good as expected, I will try to find another brands that has
better products.

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

119
Interviewer: How do you see a connection between being loyal to a brand and havi ng a
relationship to that same brand?
Kristian: Well, I think it is connected. I think that if I am loyal there is also a great likely that I
have a relationship with a brand, which I would just define as “stronger loyalty”. I think that if
you feel like you have a relationship with a brand it just means that you are more loyal to that
brand that you are to brands that you might just feel a little bit loyalty to. So I also think that
you are loyal to many more brands than you have a relationship with.
Interviewer: Do you have anything to add?
Kristian: No, I think that was all I had to say. It was interesting to talk about though.
Interviewer: Okay. Thank you for taking your time to be interviewed.
Kristian: No problem, as I said, it was interesting.
Transcript Kristina
Interviewer: Can you try to explain the degree to which you like brands and whether they are
important for you?
Kristina: That depends. I do like some brands and in general, I also believe that brands are
important. However, it of cour se depends on what the type of product we are talking.
Interviewer: Considering that brands are important for you, what kind of attachment do you
feel you have with brands?
Kristina: I have a select few brands that I feel close to, but in general, I am not particularly
close to any brands.
Interviewer: What are those brands and how do this attachment show itself towards these
brands?
Kristina: I would say Zara, H&M and Apple. And I show my attachment to these brands by
buying more or less all my cloth es from ZARA and H&M and my computer and phone are also
from Apple. Besides, I would also say that I talk a lot about these brands when I am with other
people, I am not hiding that I am loyal to these brands and therefore logically also tries to
convince o thers to uses these brands.
Interviewer: How do you feel that this is connected to your level of interest in brands?

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

120
Kristina: If we look aside the three brands I just mentioned, I do not feel like I am highly
interested in brands or that I consider the brands behind when I buy products. Of course I have
a certain level of interest in brands, but for instance my loyalty to H&M and ZARA and mostly
based on the fact that it is quite good quality to very good prices. I am satisfied with their quality
and de sign, but mostly the driving factor is that it is so cheap. So when I compare price and
quality these are just the two brands within clothing that I find best. With Apple it is a little bit
different because Apple is obviously pretty expensive, here it is more the design, high quality,
functionality and image of the brand that is important. Therefore, I would say that my interest
in their brand is higher than my interest in ZARA’s and H&M’s brand – H&M and ZARA is
all about value for money.
Interviewer: C onsidering this, what are the chances that you recommend brands or advice
against brands?
Kristina: I do recommend and advice against brands. The three brands I already mentioned I
would say that I recommend a lot. Asides that, I only recommend really goo d or bad brand
experiences.
Interviewer: If you recommend or advice against brands is that only to your family or friends
or do you use the internet e.g. social media?
Kristina: Family and friends. I have never written an online review or tagged a compa ny on
Facebook or something like that. I like to keep these things private. If I have a problem with a
brand I will contact the brand directly and then dependent on the outcome I may recommend or
advice against a brand when I talk with friends or family me mbers.
Interviewer: Can you try to explain how you feel about the attempts brands make to get you as
a loyal customer? I would like to know if it is something, you notices, ignores, like or maybe
something that annoys you?
Kristina: Oh, I really hate the se things. I just want to be able to make my own choices and not
being told what to do. If I am interested in information from a brand, and for instance is looking
for a membership card, I will seek that information out on my own. So I really don’t like it and
find it very annoying when I sometimes receive an e -mail from a brand because I forgot to
choose that I do not want to receive information from them. I also hate that on some online
shops you need to create an account, with your e -mail of course, befo re you can actually make
a purchase. For instance, sometimes I have had to buy a gift to my boyfriend from a brand that

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

121
I have no interest in, but because I had to create an account, I suddenly receive information
from them. I think that is such a stupid c oncept.
Interviewer: What about Zara, H&M and Apple, do you receive any newsletters or other offers
from them?
Kristina: Maybe a bit surprisingly, no I do not. Whatever information I need from them I will
just go to their website or go look in their stor e. If I stumble upon great offers from H&M or
ZARA I of course might jump right in and buy something, but I do not receive a newsletter
from them or something. I am just not interested in receiving all this information; my mail inbox
is plenty full without this.
Interviewer: And what can the implications of receiving these relationship offers be, positive
as well as negative?
Kristina: For me, the implications cannot be positive. It can easily be negative though. I will
be irritated and annoyed which can mean that will be likely to have a negative attitude towards
the brands that bombard med with information and offers.
Interviewer: What does this mean in relation to your intentions to purchase or repurchase a
product?
Kristina: I will not be likely to buy from or rebuy from a brand that overwhelms me with offers
and information.
Interviewer: And what about in relation to your level of brand loyalty?
Kristina: Pretty much the same, my level of brand loyalty will be affected negatively.
Interviewer: And the last one, what about in relation to your intentions to recommend a brand?
Kristina: I would be very unlikely to recommend the brand.
Interviewer: Can you try to explain the degree to which you are involved with brands, if you
are?
Kristina: Well, that is difficult to say. But I think that I am not really involved with brands that
much in general to be honest. I am involved with a few brands, particularly the ones that I have
already mentioned, but my attachment is not closer than if I find somethin g better, then I shift
to that brand.
To what degree are you actively engaging/interacting with brands for instance online, on social

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

122
media or other platforms?
Kristina: I communicate with brands some times. I for instance follow some brands on social
media and if I need to get customer service or have questions, I often ask a question on the
company’s Facebook page or in a private message to them on Facebook.
Interviewer: Can you try to explain your motivations for communicating with brands, what do
you want to achieve with it?
Kristina: I would say that my primary motivation is probably just to get customer service, if I
need a problem to be fixed or if I need to make a purchase.
Interviewer: Do you see a connection between communicating with a brand and the likelihood
that you are loyal to a brand?
Kristina: I guess there is a connection. Because those brands that I communicate with I typically
does because I am already a customer that needs something to be fixed.
Interviewer: If brands tries to co mmunicate with you, what determines whether you perceive
that communication as positive or negative?
Kristina: The single most important thing for me is that I have asked to be communicated with.
If not, I just consider it spam and gets annoyed about it. However, I rarely accepts to receive
any information from brands actually, it is just on Facebook I think. I do not like to have these
things filling up my mail inbox, because I am just never able to chew through the tons of emails
that I sometimes receive , so if I also have to check emails from brands all the time, it is just too
much and makes everything else seems even more unmanageable.
Interviewer: Can you try to explain some of the positives and negatives of interacting with
brands?
Kristina: For me , when I am on Facebook, I believe that it is sometimes interesting to see what
different brands are doing. But that is because when I am on Facebook I am relaxed and fully
aware that today my Newsfeed consists of 80% information for anyone else than my ac tual
friends. But in general, it is all about the amount of information. I did receive news on emails
from brands I liked previously, but felt like I received more than I could handle and then
suddenly I had 10 emails from the same brand lying that I had n ever opened or deleted. And
that is why I definitely have a negative attitude towards interacting with brands today, it is not
because I don’t think that it can be interesting sometimes, but even if it is interesting if it is too

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

123
much then you are overwhel med by it.
Interviewer: Can you clarify what you mean when you say that you are overwhelmed by the
information?
Kristina: I mean that since you more or less receive information anywhere you go and anywhere
you read, then you do not know how to process a ll that information and it instead becomes a
thing that you don’t even want to spend time considering. I also have a pretty busy life, so I
rarely have time to consider these things, of course I theoretically have time, but it is just not a
time I want to spend on it and therefore not time that I give myself to that.
Interviewer: Can you try to explain what a relationship is to you – A normal interpersonal
relationship, what defines it?
Kristina: A relationship is something personal, something that you ca n have with a lot of people
with various degree of commitment I would say. What I mean is that the strength of a
relationship often varies significantly. I for instance have a lot stronger relationship to my wife
than to some of my friends. However, they a re still all centred on the same things.
Interviewer: What are those things?
Kristina: Commitment, interest, trust. That is the words that I first think of.
Interviewer: Now, can you try to compare this to your definition of a relationship with a brand?
Kristina: Well, as I said previously. I think that relationships have various degrees of strength
and while a relationship to a brand in many ways are similar to a normal relationship, I would
say that the main difference is the strength of the relations hip. Clearly, for me, a relationship to
a brand will be much much weaker than any kind of relationship that you can have with a friend,
boyfriend, mom or dad.
Interviewer: Why do you think that relationships with brands are less strong?
Kristina: Because of the forgiveness and trust that are part of many relationships. In a very
strong relationship you would always trust the other person and you would also be likely to
forgive that person for any wrongdoings. The weaker the relationship, the less you will be likely
to trust and person and likewise be likely to forgive. I think this is often seen with brands,
sometimes you can have been happy with a brand for years, but if they make a horrible product
one year of maybe treat you badly or something you will be likely to drop them immediately
and find another product. Not forgive them or trust that they would do better the next time.

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

124
Interviewer: What is your interest in being loyal to brands?
Kristina: I do want to be loyal to the brands that I am very happ y with. If they make great
quality products at good prices, obviously I want to be loyal to them. I want to continue using
their products and support their business so that I can keep buying their products in the future.
Interviewer: How do you see a conn ection between being loyal to a brand and having a
relationship to that same brand?
Kristina: I guess that it is pretty similar.
Interviewer: Can you elaborate?
Kristina: Well, I think that it is similar in the sense that loyalty is something that comes from a
good relationship.
Interviewer: Do you have anything to add?
Kristina: No, I think that we have covered it all.
Interviewer: Then thank you for your participation.
Kristina: You welcome.
Transcript Maiken
Interviewer: Can you try to explain t he degree to which you like brands and whether they are
important for you?
Maiken: I think it depends a lot on the brand. I cannot really say that I like brands a lot or do
not like them. I have certain brands that I am highly loyal to and which I would bu y no matter
what. I for example like Apples products a lot. I have had several good experiences with their
products and because of this, I buy their products every time I need a new computer or a new
phone. But again it depends on the brand and the situati on. I also have some brands, which I
would prefer as for example Pepsi cola. But if I go to the store and Coca Cola is at a discount I
would buy that instead. I still like Pepsi better but the brand is in this case just not as important
as the price.
So I would say that a brand like Apple is more important to me. You can always count on their
products to perform and the service level is very high. Also having the newest Apple products
has kind of become a part of my identity.

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

125
Interviewer: Considering that brands can be important for you, what kind of attachment do you
feel you have with brands?
Maiken: Again, it depends on the brand. For some it is just a superficial relationship. Maybe I
like their brand expression, their commercials or their products, but I would change to another
brand if something better came along. For other brands, like Apple, the connection goes a little
deeper. I follow the latest news about the companies, am interested in their wellbeing and am
highly invested in their products.
Interviewer: How does this attachment show itself?
Maiken: It shows itself in the fact that I myself search for information about the company,
follow their company page and keep on buying their products. It is mostly a one -way
relationship, but as long a s their products keep on performing, I prefer it that way.
Interviewer: How do you feel that this is connected to your level of interest in brands?
Maiken: My attachment is highly related to my interest in the brand. Actually I would say that
my attachme nt is solely based on my interest. I have a large interest in Apple which has caused
me to search for information about the brand and their product which in term has resulted in me
being invested in the brand, in that way resulting in some kind of attachme nt. Oppositely I tend
to be less attached to brands which I do not have that big of an interest in. I may prefer the taste
of Pepsi, but my interest in the brand is solely due to the taste, and I would switch anytime if
something better came along.
Interv iewer: Considering this, what are the chances that you recommend brands or advice
against brands?
Maiken: I would definitely recommend brands which I am invested in or attached to. I think
that the more interested I am in a company and the more attached I am to the brand, the more
likely I am to recommend it. I might also advise people against a product or brand due to a poor
experience with the company.
Interviewer: If you recommend or advice against brands is that only to your family or friends
or do you use the internet e.g. social media?
Maiken: Yes it would primarily be friends and family. I may review a product on the page I
bought it, but only if feeling highly satisfied with it. I would never recommend products on
social media. I might write that I have just purchased this new cool IPhone , but that is it. Then

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

126
if people are interested in the review of the product, they can ask me themselves.
Interviewer: Can you try to explain how you feel about the attempts brands make to get you as
a loyal custom er? I would like to know if it is something, you notices, ignores, like or maybe
something that annoys you?
Maiken: I think that brands try way too hard to make you a loyal customer. I believe that if a
brand performs on a continuous basis that is what mak es me a loyal customers. If they keep on
coming up with interesting new products, I keep on being invested in them. I prefer to decide
myself how much information I am interested in from the company, I do not want to get
spammed with all sorts of irrelevan t information. Oppositely, I want them to communicate
openly about the company, but in places where I myself can decide the relevance. I often block
company newsletters or email because they send information almost every day which are
neither relevant, nor of interest to me.
Interviewer: And what can the implications of receiving these relationship offers be, positive
as well as negative?
Maiken: I must say that they are mostly negative. Companies today try too hard to get your
attention. But what they do not realise is that half of the information they sent out is irrelevant
for the receiver and result in annoyance instead of gratitude. Some companies though manage
to segment their communication, in this way distributing content that has actual relevance for
the receiver. In these cases, I really think the relationship offers has a positive effect, as it creates
higher service and more interest in the brand/products.
Interviewer: Do you believe that these relationship offerings, for instance emails, newsl etters,
sales clerks, loyalty programs, membership programs or any other activity that directly attempts
to build relationships with you affect you positively or negatively?
Maiken: Again, it depends on how the company approaches it. If they send me inform ation that
is relevant, information that is not only sales related but can maybe improve the lifespan of my
current product and if they do not do it constantly, I think that these relationship offerings do
have a positive effect. But then again, they will not work if I do not have any interest in the
brand, or if their products do not perform. I mostly think they work for brands that I am already
invested in.
Interviewer: But in general, do you believe that loyalty programs work?
Well, I mostly think loy alty programs work because you save money. If you find the products

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

127
cheaper somewhere else most people would probably switch. So loyalty programs does not
really do anything for me personally. Of course if I like a brand it is nice to be a part of a loyalt y
program to get discounts but the program is not what made me loyal to the brand in the first
place.

Interviewer: What about relationship offerings then?
Overall I also think that most of these relationship offerings have a negative affect if you are
not already interested or invested in a brand. For me personally a brand has to show me
something in terms of product quality and performance in order to earn my trust and attachment,
relationships offerings can not do that on their own. So most of the time relationships offerings
are just annoying.
Interviewer: What does this mean in relation to your intentions to purchase or repurchase a
product?
Maiken: My intention to purchase or repurchase a product is based on previous experience with
the product or t he price. I do not believe that relationships offering affects that. A loyalty
program may cause me to try a new product because I can get it cheaper, but I will not purchase
it again or be loyal to the brand if I do not like the product or do not find the brand interesting.
Interviewer: And what about in relation to your level of brand loyalty?
Maiken: To me, this works in the same way as with my intentions to purchase or repurchase a
product.
Interviewer: And the last one, what about in relation to your intentions to recommend a brand?
Maiken: It would not affect that at all. I would never recommend a product or brand solely
based on relationships offerings. I would only recommend products that I truly think are the
best.
Interviewer: Can you try to exp lain the degree to which you are involved with brands, if you
are?
Maiken: I am involved with brands to the degree that I actively search information about
companies that I have an interest in and which have performed well over time. I do not actively
engage with brands. I would like the information to be available for me to find, but I do not
personally have a need to communicate directly with the brand as long as th ey live up to my
expectations.

To what degree are you actively engaging/interacting with brands for instance online, on social
media or other platforms?

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

128
Maiken: I do not feel the need to communicate directly with the brand as long as they perform.
I follow brands on social media and read their posts, but I do not comment or post anything on
their wall. I often search for information about companies I find interesting, how they are
performing, what their plans and goals are, and as long as this is available to me that is enough.

Interviewer: Can you try to explain your motivations for communic ating with brands, what do
you want to achieve with it?
Maiken: I just want to be able to access the information I find relevant. I do not have a need to
actively communicate with brands. As long as they keep their promises, remain interesting, and
open ab out their business I see no need to communicate more with them.

Interviewer: Do you see a connection between communicating with a brand and the likelihood
that you are loyal to a brand?
Maiken: No, as I said previously, I personally prefer to find the i nformation I need myself. My
loyalty is solely based on my interest in the company and the performance of their products.

Interviewer: If brands try to communicate with you, what determines whether you perceive that
communication as positive or negative?
Maiken: Overall, I find it annoying if a company tries to communicate with me without me
initiating it. If I have not signed up for information about the company, I do not want to receive
it. When I for example sign up for a newsletter or loyalty program, I find it very annoying if
they spam me with irrelevant information on a daily basis. Oppositely, the communication can
have a positive effect if it is targeted to my interests and needs.

Interviewer: Can you try to explain what a relationship is to you – A normal interpersonal
relationship, what defines it?
Maiken: Well that was difficult, but I will try. I think it is about having a mutual interest in each
other. That you care for one another and are interested in each other’s wellbeing.

Interviewer: Now, can you try to compare this to your definition of a relationship with a brand?
Maiken: A relationship with a brand is more superficial. You may have an interest or attachment
to a brand but it is a one way relationship. There is no mutual interest as such besides the
company wanting to keep you as a customer.

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

129
Interviewer: What is your interest in being loyal to brands?
Maiken: I do not know if I have any interest in being loyal to a brand. Loyalty is something you
build over time. If a company keeps performing on every level, I will become loyal to that
brand, even though that may not be my initial intention when I started buying the product

Interviewer: How do you see a connection between being loyal to a brand and having a
relationship to that sam e brand?
Maiken: If you are loyal to a brand, you share the interest in its wellbeing. You do not want the
company to suffer because you want to keep buying their product. I though still do not know if
I would call it a relationship as such, as a relation ship is a two -way street. Even though I like
Apples products and have a large interest in their company I also know that they do not have
any special interest in me besides keeping me as a loyal customer.
Interviewer: Do you have anything to add?
Maiken: No, I think I have said what I wanted.
Interviewer: Thank you, I appreciate you taking your time to be interviewed.
Maiken: You welcome, time went fast, so no problem.
Transcript Maria
Interviewer: Can you try to explain the degree to which you like br ands and whether they are
important for you?
Maria: In principle, brands does not mean much for me and are really not important at all. So I
don’t really like brands in the way that I find them important. For me, it matters more e.g. if it
is food that it tastes great and if it is clothing how it looks and how it suits me rather than the
type of brand.
Interviewer: If you do not like brands and they are not important for you, what kind of
attachment do you feel you have with brands?
Maria: Most surely no t a close attachment . I do not think that I am able to mention one brand
that I feel close to or a single brand that I always buy from for that matter.
Interviewer: How do you feel that this is connected to your level of interest in brands?
Maria: I thin k it is logically connected in the sense that I do not really have any interest in
brands. At least I do not have a specific interest in any certain brands that comes to mind.

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

130
Interviewer: Considering this, what are the chances that you recommend brands or advice
against brands?
Maria: Quite small, I would say. It is quite uncommon for me to recommend or advice against
a brand. If I have done it, it has only been to my close family or friends. I never do it on
Facebook . I do not like to "point out" good guy s or bad buys like that. Therefore, I guess I am
quite untraditional in that way.
Interviewer: Can you try to explain how you feel about the attempts brands make to get you as
a loyal customer? I would like to know if it is something, you notices, ignores , like or maybe
something that annoys you?
Maria: Newsletters and similar things are good, until a certain degree, as long as it is something
that directly addresses me and are relevant for me, then I think it is fine. However, often it just
get too much b ecause you are bombarded with it, and in general, I just use newsletters and
similar marketing promotions to see whether someone offer special discounts that I can exploit.
It is not because I have any kind of interest in the brand or want to support them. It is 100% for
my own winnings sake. Therefore, I also think that I am quite easy annoyed by these marketing
bombardments.
Interviewer: And what can the implications of this be?
Maria: It can certainly annoy me. There is nothing worse than spam.
Interv iewer: What is spam to you?
Maria: Usually, I would say anything I receive that I did not ask to receive. However, often
even if have said yes to receive something, I sometimes start to consider it spam if they keep
sending messages, particularly messages that are solely sales related and has no specific
relevance for me, then it feel like they "push" the product down on me. This clearly creates
some kind of irritation for me, which is likely to end with the result that I simply try to block
any news from the brand.
Interviewer: Could it affect your general view of the brand?
Maria: I am not sure it would affect my general view on the brand, I think if I saw a good offer
I could still end up buying the brand. However, I would probably try to avoid any comm ercials
or alike from the brand.
Interviewer: Can you try to explain why you are interested or uninterested in a relationship with

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

131
a brand?
Maria: I have no interest in having a relationship with a brand whatsoever. I do not have any
kind of motivation f or having a relationship with a brand. I do not have any relationships with
brand s, or a need for it. Brands do not really mean anything to me. It is more about whether the
product is of great quality and fits my style and tastes. I guess I am also so pric e oriented that I
am willing to shift to any just -as-good but cheaper brand, anytime, across all product categories,
I believe.
Interviewer: Do you believe that these relationship offerings, for instance emails, newsletters,
sales clerks, loyalty programs , membership programs or any other activity that directly attempts
to build relationships with you affect you positively or negatively?
Maria: They most definitely affect me much more negatively than positively. The only reason
I want to receive these offe rs is to get great offers anything else is just irritating.
I honestly also believe that these things have been part of making me the type of consumer that
I am today. A consumer that more or less only think about the products price and quality, and
is highly disloyal and ready to change at the first sight of something better or leave a brand after
just one negative experience. And I believe many people share my belief in this and are the
same type of disloyal consumer. I actually think that previously I w ere a much more loyal
consumer than I am today. However, because I have been bombarded with marketing messages
and because I have so many opportunities for comparing prices and products, I have changed
as a consumer. All these marketing messages is definit ely why they have lost me as a loyal
consumer because there are so much communicating that is just annoying and tiresome.
Also, because today there is just no longer that great a difference between products on key
parameters as quality, taste and functiona lity. And you know, today we often know the
previously hidden stories. For instance in Bilka (Supermarket chain) they sell budget products
and high quality product, which they have created specific brands for, but in reality both product
come out of the sa me fabric. So you kind of know that there is nothing behind it and it is just a
façade. Therefore, it also believe that many people are highly price oriented.
Interviewer: What does this mean in relation to your intentions to purchase or repurchase a
product?
Maria: I think that overall, I would only have intentions to purchase or repurchase a brand if
e.g. a newsletter or similar offered me a great discount . But these relationship offerings would

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

132
not make me want to have or give me the feeling that I have a relationship to the brand and
therefore like that brand more. So I do not think the implications would be that positive as I
would probably only have intentions to buy if it was a great offers.
Interviewer: And what about in relation to your level o f brand loyalty?
That I would not be likely to be more loyal because of it. I am not really affected positively
about these things because I am not really a loyal person.
Interviewer: And the last one, what about in relation to your intentions to recommen d a brand?
Maria: I would maybe recommend the offer, and maybe if they provide great advice or tips that
are relevant, I might. However, if I saw it cheaper anywhere else, I would most likely just buy
that. So as you see, I would not really recommend the brand but more just the offer.
Interviewer: Can you try to explain the degree to which you are involved with brands, if you
are?
Maria: I am not involved with brands at all. So well, there is not that much to explain.
Interviewer: Can you explain why you are not interested in being involved with brands then?
Maria: It is just not something that is interesting for me. As a said earlier, I am not really a
loyal kind of person. I do not care that much about brands and I do not see it as my responsibility
to support any brands, therefore I also do not have an interest in being involved with brands.
Interviewer: To what degree are you actively engaging/interacting with brands for instance
online, on social media or other platforms?
Maria: To no degree, if I can put it that way. For me, a brand is just a brand; it is only out of
necessity that I buy individual brands. I do not have any relationship with any brands so I cannot
see why I should be involved with brands, as they do not have any meaning for me. I do not
have any kind of motivati on for communicating with brands at all, besides maybe get discounts
to save money.
Interviewer: Can you try to explain some of the positives and negatives of interacting with
brands, even though you do not do it yourself?
Maria: you can get more guidance and more out of your products, and maybe you can help to
improve future products.
Interviewer: If brands tries to communicate with you, what determines whether you perceive

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

133
that communication as positive or negative?
Maria: I think that if there is an excessive amount of communication, which I often think there
is, then I see it very negatively. No matter where you go today, communication is everywhere,
if you are anywhere online on Facebook, a website or alike commercial s pop up everywhere
and if you want membership cards or be part of loyalty programs you always receive way to
much information regarding all sorts of things you have no interest in. I quickly start to see it
as spam, which of course has the opposite effect of what brands intended. So the level of
communication definitely needs to balanced with the level of communication I expect , for it to
be positive.
Interviewer: How do you see a connection between a brand interacting with you and you being
loyal to a br and?
Maria: I think that if people communicate with brands, those people are probably more loyal to
those brands because they might have a sincere interest in those brands if they e.g. comment on
Facebook or alike. I would at least assume that. However, I also think that if it is the opposite
way around, where the brand tries to communicate with their customers, it can easily feel too
much and have the opposite effect where it just become irritating as you might not have started
the interaction or the inte rest in having a conversation at all.
Interviewer: What about in terms of having a relationship with a brand? Does interaction
encourage this?
Maria: I think it is the same as I just said.
Interviewer: Can you try to explain what a relationship is to yo u – A normal interpersonal
relationship, what defines it?
Maria: For me, it is about being there for each other, care about how each other are, and it is
about love and doing things to ensure that one’s partner is happy and about communicating
together.
Interviewer: Now, can you try to compare this to your definition of a relationship with a brand?
It is not comparable I think because, to me, a brand is a thing, something that just needs to be
there. When I buy a brand, I do not feel that I get anything ba ck or that they give me anything.
There is no reciprocal interest. Their only interest is to sell me their brand and that is where it
stops.

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

134
So I don’t think that you can compare a interpersonal relationship with a relationship with a
brand because a bran d doesn’t know anything about you. You might feel that you know a lot
about the brand, like it and communicate, but in reality a brand do not know enough about you
to have a relationship with you, and be able to provide you exactly what you want. Brands do n’t
help to solve your real problems, product solve them, not brands and similarly consumers rarely
want to honestly help brands, they just want to have their own way and make them fix their
problems. There is no relationship in that.
Interviewer: What is your interest in being loyal to brands?
Maria: I am not interested at all. Again, there are probably some products that I buy every
single time I select a product, from a given category. However, it is definitely not because of
the brand, because I thin k the brand is amazing or that I have a relationship to the brand. For
instance Kim’s Popcorn, I really love those and I don’t have count on how many times I have
bought them. However, I do not buy them because I have a relationship with them or that I fin d
the brand amazing. I just believe that their popcorn are the best on the market. It is not as if I
buy any other products from them, which they sell plenty of. So I that way, I think you could
say that I am not interested in being loyal to brands, I rebu y brands yes, but not because of
loyalty.
Interviewer: So are you not loyal to some brands?
No, as I said I rebuy a lot of brands, but not out of loyalty. I buy those brands because I like
them, either their taste or quality or because they are cheap.
Interviewer: How do you see a connection between being loyal to a brand and have a
relationship to that same brand?
I believe that it is connected. If you are loyal, I guess you also have a relationship. Of course,
if it is a real kind of loyalty where you really have a deeper emotional connection to the brand,
and not just that you rebuy brands. Similar, if you have a relationship I also believe that you are
loyal. So I guess you could say that if you have a relationship with a brand, you will always be
loyal to a brand. Likewise, if you are truly loyal to a brand and really want to support a brand,
for any personal reason, then you also have a relationship, but you need to have this connection
and not just rebuy the product for no apparent reason other than it just tastes good or looks good
or something like that.
Interviewer: Do you have anything else you would like to add?

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

135
Maria: Yes, I have thought about some of the stuff we just talked about and I would like to add
that I do not think that anything coul d make me want to have a relationship with a brand.
However, if it should be, the brand should be able to figure out what my exact interests were
and give me something that were not at all sales related, but something that I could use to
improve the stuff that I receive from them. They had to provide something additional to what I
get from buying their product, it could be advice or guidance that I could use in my every day
in order for me to feel that I receive many things back from them. There would also need to be
mutual respect and interest and maybe a common cause to support e.g. if I really care about the
environment, brands that fight for these causes and try to avoid harming the environment might
be able to get a closer relationship to me. So in that way it is plausible that I could be inclined
to have a relationship with a brand.
Interviewer: Thank you for your additional input. I just have one last question for you that came
to mind. You said, you do not feel you are loyal to brands, but you have ma ny products that
you buy often, if so, when would you stop to rebuy these products?
Maria: Well, I would keep buying the products even though I continue to have no
communication with the brand. I would probably even prefer that, because I would keep buyin g
their product in the same quantities as long as I do not find anything better. Nevertheless, it is
also clear that I am not attached to any of these brands, so as soon as I experience a better
product or maybe just something cheaper or easier accessible I would change to that product.
So those products I often buy, I would keep buying, but not be interested in other products
under that brand on in buying more, but I would be just as interested in another product that is
better or cheaper.
I think you co uld say that I am always just interested in certain products, while I really do not
care about the brands.
Interviewer: Okay, that was it. Thank you for your responses, they were very helpful.
Maria: You welcome, I hope you will do well with your dissert ation project.
Transcript Morten
Interviewer: Can you try to explain the degree to which you like brands and whether they are
important for you?

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

136
Morten: I believe that brands are critical, particularly because I have worked with brands, I have
done a lot of visual work and alike for brands and therefore I also believe that a good brand is
Alfa Omega for a company to work great. I think it should be a top priority for any brands to
build a strong brand. So surely, I like brands in that way.
Interviewer: Th is seams to be based on your “professional” expertise, but what about in relation
to your personal opinion?
Morten: From my own point of view, brands are definitely also important. For instance if we
look at google, their brands is incredible important for me, they have created a brand where you
are as customer is basically 100% sure that everything will work perfectly. The “old” Apple (I
call them that because I now believe that they are heading in the wrong direction) is the same,
you know that you will h ave to pay something extra but you know that if you paid that extra,
you would also buy something damn good. Therefore, it is also important for me that I trust the
brands that I buy from.
If you like brands and they are important for you, what kind of at tachment do you feel you have
with brands?
Morten: I think that my level of attachment varies a lot dependent on the brand. But also that I
have some brands which I am quite closely connect to because I really like these brands and
they maybe be importan t things that I use in my everyday.
Interviewer: How do you feel that this is connected to your level of interest in brands?
Morten: I guess it is connected because I have quite a big interest in brands. I use a lot of time
investigating the different bra nds, the values and reputation whenever I have to make any larger
purchase. I am actually interested in a lot of brands, most of which are for professional reasons.
I follow many brands simply to learn something within my professional field. I do not real ly
follow brands in my personal life but as I said, I often make intensive research about brands
when I have to make important purchases. And when I do that I actually search more about the
brands that the actual product specifications.
Interviewer: could you give an example?
For instance if we take HP, they are known to make computers that do not last. They might
produce one good computer once a while but as long as they are known to have poor cooling
systems after half a year, then I do not care if the machine is great because I wouldn’t dare to
use money on that product. Therefore, I also focus on what people say about the brand rather

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

137
than one single product. It might give the result that I could get a better product that I end up
choosing, but I know that the product I have chosen is going to work.
Interviewer: Considering this, what are the chances that you recommend brands or advice
against brands?
Maria: I think that because of my professional career, I am often in a situation where I need to
recom mend brands. So I actually do that quite often. Personally, it happens as well, but I would
not say that it is something that I often do. But you know, logically when you are interested in
brands you sometimes start to talk about brands with friends and th en it is of course only natural
that you give your opinion, negative or positive , about certain brands. So it might not always
be directly that you do it.
Interviewer: Can you try to explain how you feel about the attempts brands make to get you as
a loya l customer? I would like to know if it is something you notices, ignores, like or maybe
something that annoys you?
Morten: Newsletters, to take that, I believe is something invented by the devil. I always want
to seek out the information that I need, direc tly at the source e.g. on their own website. I try to
avoid any information from brands actually. If I like a brand, I go check for myself if there is
something new and interesting for me to know about. The mentality of throwing information in
the heads of consumers I really really do not like it, therefore I really do not want to have
anything to do with commercials of different kinds, offers or memberships and do an effort to
avoid it.
I use the media much more to check for information. I like to get my information from
independent third parties.
Interviewer: Why, do you have an example?
Because the other stuff is annoying, I get too much of it, this way I can decide on my own. And
the information is much more trustworthy. I once had an e -mail account where I got 100 e –
mails every single day, and only two were relevant. Therefore, I use trustworthy media sources
and if companies want to tell me that they have got something new or alike, I would prefer to
find out about it from their own website or from an other party. I do not like to receive it in a
newsletter, even though I like the brand we are talking about. I really think that people are tired
of commercials and of receiving stuff all the time.
Interviewer: And what can the implications of this be?

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

138
Morten: To me, companies that try too hard and send out too much information and tries to
“catch” their customers seems untrustworthy too me. Particularly if they exaggerate it. For
instance Bilka, I never shop electronics in Bilka, even though they sell ex actly the same stuff
as Elgiganten does, but I always buy it in Elgiganten. Simply because Bilka constantly and ever
constantly tries to catch their customers, they almost literally throws information and offers
down your throat, and therefore I just have this idea that what they are selling is crap, even
though it might be exactly the same product as I can find in another store. They just do not seem
serious and trustworthy. In reality, I do not really have any kind of evidence for saying this, but
I just have an this idea that their service cannot be that great if they are in such a need to try to
catch me, I would come automatically if their service were great. So I would definitely say that
because of these relationship offerings I today clearly have com e to have a negative view of
Bilka’s brand.
Interviewer: Do you believe that these relationship offerings, for instance emails, newsletters,
sales clerks, loyalty programs, membership programs or any other activity that directly attempts
to build relatio nships with you affect you positively or negatively?
Morten: I have already talked about the negative sides, all the things they send out and that. But
sometimes it can be okay in the cases where I have made an active choice to hear from a brand
that I rea lly what to hear from. If they done exaggerate the number of news they send me I can
be happy about that. A problem though is that often you end up being signed up to all kinds of
stuff without you ever realise it because “I want to receive news from” is a lways automatically
checked of.
So I would actually say that things as mails, text -messages and anything like that actually makes
me devaluate a brand.
Interviewer: What does this mean in relation to your intentions to purchase or repurchase a
product?
Morten: It means that particularly excessive use change my intentions and make me less likely
to purchase or repurchase a brand. Let us for instance say that I were a member of a monthly
subscription service. If they sent me 5 mails a month, I think I would be inclined to drop the
subscription simply. But I also think I would be appropriately annoyed about it that I would not
want to spend my money at that company. It is not as if I would develop a “total -hate”
relationship to the brand or something like th at, but they could annoy me enough for me to
decide that I do not want their services anymore.

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

139
Interviewer: And what about in relation to your level of brand loyalty?
Morten: In terms of my loyalty, I think it is somewhat the same as I just talked about. Now I
am an incarnated Apple fan, I buy more or less everything from apple besides mobiles, and is
in general a very loyal fan. But I have also been forced to say no to annoying news from apple.
When you buy an apple computer, you per standard receive thei r newsletter on your mail client
without having signed up for it; it is an automatic RSS service. The very first thing I did when
I got a new computer was to remove this. I do not want to receive any news from Apple. But
I’m not entirely sure whether this is because it annoys me or because that I seek out information
about apple so often on my own that I just do not want to receive these news twice. However,
I think I can safely say that I under any circumstance would prefer to seek out the information
on m y own. I think that giving customers the need or want to seek out information about the
brand is much better than forcing the information down on their customers. I definitely think
that is a stronger sign of quality.
Interviewer: And the last one, what a bout in relation to your intentions to recommend a brand?
Morten: It could make me likely to recommend a brand I guess. I have made many
recommendations on different software programs that I have never used, but which I have
learned about through differe nt media and newsletters. But now that I think about it, this
information didn’t really come directly from the company but e.g. from bloggers or something
like that. So instead, I would say that I make recommendations of brands based on other expert’s
opinions, whereas information I have received directly from the company I would rarely use as
the basis for a recommendation. And I would not be more inclined to recommend a brand that
sends me a lot of information.
Interviewer: Can you try to explain the deg ree to which you are involved with brands?
Morten: I can yes, for instance Apple’s brand as I mentioned, but as I also said now I have the
impression that they are moving in a negative direction. I also really like google and their brand,
I really think it is the world’s greatest brand because of the amazing stamp of quality it is. If
google puts their name on something, everyone knows that it works, and it is going to work
greatly. Have you ever head anyone complain about a google product? It is a little b it the same
about Apple, Android or HTC, most people knows that the stuff just works.
These are all brands I am involved with, to various degree, but I probably most close to google.
I follow them closely and uses so many of their services.

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

140
Interviewer: Can you try to explain how this close attachment shows itself ?
Morten: For instance with apple, it shows itself in the way that whenever someone has a
problem with a computer I tell them: “what did you expect, you didn’t buy an apple” and
whenever someone tries to make me use competing products to the brands I’m attached to I
will always be extremely sceptical towards these brands,.
Interviewer: Do you have any close connection to maybe some smaller brands and not just these
global giants?
Morten. Yes su rely, for instance Ecco. I have always bought Ecco shoes as my work -shoes (I
have been bi -jobbing as a waiter for man y years and still am sometimes). I do not even try to
look for other brands than Ecco, I do not even consider it for a second. I know that I need a
great shoe when I walk many kilometres and for that, I just know that Ecco will do a great job
and ensure that I do not get sore feet, knees, back or whatever. And well it shows itself in the
fact that I the last 7 years have had been buying exact ly the same shoe from Ecco year after
year. It is the exact same model, same size and everything. It is not like I have any special
reason to buy the shoes from Ecco. I do not receive any kind of information from them or
anything, it is just something I have grown up with, probably because they were the first pair
of shoes I bought the first time I started as a waiter, and now it is simply the only thing that I
want.
I actually also have a decent connection to some supermarkets. But in general I probably have
a tendency to associate size with quality. The bigger the company, the more positive mention
there is likely to be about this company and therefore I believe that the quality must be better
because so many people know this brand, but still they have a great reputation. For instance
Lidl, I think that is a quite good place to shop, whereas Fakta, a quite similar shop but small
supermarket chain I do not like that much. And I think it’s just because I know th at Lidl are
such a huge concern. They are like the 2’nd biggest supermarket concern in Germany.
To what degree are you actively engaging/interacting with brands for instance online, on social
media or other platforms?
Morten: Actually not that much. But I for instance communicate with Komplett (Onli ne
webshop for electronics) where I chat with them to find out what to buy, but actually I really
just exploit them to find out what to buy because they are more expensive than a lot of their
competitors. Therefore, I actually just use their service, becau se I know that they deliver great

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

141
service, but then just buys the stuff from a cheaper competitor, a bit mean now that I think about
it. However, it is important that I do support the one I buy from. I do not just always buy what
is cheapest, I need to tru st the company, otherwise I would rather pay more to be sure of the
quality.
But I’m not really an heavy user of social media or that, I do e -mail with some companies
wherein I’m a customer, but that is usually in connection with the use of their products or
because of a reclamation of their product.
Interviewer: Can you elaborate on your motivations for communicating with brands?
Morten: It is just to get guidance, a reclamation or advices.
Interviewer: What is the connection, if any, between you commu nicating with a brand and the
likelihood that you are loyal to that brand?
Morten: I think there is a significant connection. I do not communicate that often, but the brands
that I do communicate with is definitely also the brands that I am most loyal to a nd usually
brands that I am already users of. If I have been communicating with a brand back and forth I
also think that I would be more likely to trust that brand. In that way there is a connection.
Interviewer: what if brands tries to communicate with y ou, what determines whether you
perceive that communication as positive or negative?
That is different then. I definitely do not become loyal because brands try to interact or
communicate with me, as I said earlier I really hate this bombardment of messag es that it so
often feels like and that is more likely to put me further away from a brand. So in general I will
always find it negative if it is too much but I may find it okay if it is limited. But I do, as said
earlier, prefer to find the information I need on my own.
Interviewer: Can you try to explain some of the positives and negatives of interacting with
brands?
Morten: On the negative side, it can often become too much as I talked about, it particularly
annoys me to receive stuff I have not accepte d to receive. But even when I’ve accepted to
receive stuff, it can still get too much and also be a negative experience to communicate with
the brands. Also, sometimes companies can seem very professional in their communication but
then when you talk to th eir staff via. Mail or maybe telephone it just does not fit with the
professional communication that they seem to practice. Often I just have the impression when

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

142
I contact a firm that it will be great and easy but in reality they do not really communicate that
well. To me it creates some kinds of mistrust because it seems as if the company is pretending
to be something they are not, for instance highly professional and experienced communicators ,
when that is not at all the case.
Therefore, I think it is i mportant for companies that open up communication with their
customers that they have a fit between the people who actually talks to customers and what the
brand preaches. There can easily be a mismatch between what the brand stands for and how the
actuall y communicate which surely do not does anything positive for me.
Interviewer: Can you try to explain what a relationship is to you – A normal interpersonal
relationship, what defines it?
Morten: A regular relationship? That is tuff, but let me try. For me , it is about interest for the
other part in the relationship. To have a relationship you need to have an interest in what the
other person is doing, not in relation to what they are working with, but what they are doing in
their everyday life and in relat ion to how they are doing personally. And you need to have an
idea or see something in that person, to know that this person is something good or can become
something even better or something like that. It can be career, or on a personal level where the
person can evolve. So you definitely need to have an interest in their life, how they are
progressing. You should also want to achieve their accept, when you have a relationship to a
person, you tell those persons that you have a good relationship to about n ew and interesting
stuff. And you want to tell them so that you can get their accept and because you have
confidence that they will give you that accept.
Interviewer: Now, can you try to compare this to your definition of a relationship with a brand?
Mort en: A relationship to a brand is in my eyes something that has a bit of the same, but in
another way, it is much more about “submission”, if you can say that. I mean that you as a user
choose to say that you seem stabile and quality oriented (if that is wh at is important to you),
and then you trust that what they are saying regarding this is correct. You trust that they know
more about it than yourself, nevertheless not meaning that you stupidly follow them and believe
every word they are saying. For instan ce, Apple just changed from Nvidia to AMD, personally,
I think it is a catastrophe, but 90% of all Apple fans trust that Apple know what they are doing
and that there is a sound reason for Apple to change such an important part with a competitor.
So when y ou have a relationship to a brand, it is a kind of submission where you need to trust
them blindly. You do not have the opportunity to share yours with theirs.

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

143
Therefore, I see a brand relationship as one -way communication where you trust a brand blindly
until a brand shows that they are no longer trustworthy, even though there are many ways to
communicate with a brand. I also think that the transition from where you as a user have a good
relationship to a brand to where you think it is the worst thing tha t has ever existed. The balance
is extremely fine, so little needs to happen before that relationship is destroyed. It is a very
fragile relationship.
Interviewer: You talk about submission from the consumers, so it is the brands that have the
power?
Mort en: Well, no, consumers can choose not to buy the product. But again it depends on the
brand I think. For instance Samsung, as a brand, have been totally dominated by consumers on
the Danish market. They have never really accepted Samsung well, Samsung is simply not
capable of making money in Denmark, and have juts retracted all their computers back in
Denmark, so in that way yes definitely. However, if we look at Apple for instance, consumers
have absolutely no power. Look at their phones, the IPhone 5 was criticized like hell, everyone
hated the phone, and still I was the most bought phone in the history of mobile phones, by a
mile. The IPhone 6 was hated by everyone, even IPhone user do not think it is as good as the
IPhone 5, but still so many buy versio n 6 even though they do not believe that the phone is
better in any way. Simply because Apple has been capable of creating a brand where the user
have nothing to say because it is so exclusive that consumers feel that they are either “with the
brand” or a looser. It is a bit the same with Coca Cola once. Either you drank Coca Cola or you
were a looser, right? But today that has changed quite a lot because Pepsi have been fighting
the ranks for a long time
But now, Apple is in a position where they have all the power. Of course, consumers can
criticize and complain, Apple of course listens to a certain degree, but essentially they can do
whatever they want and still they are going to sell millions of IPhone.
Interviewer: Can you sum this up briefly:
To sum i t up, there are few similarities between the two kinds of relationships. For instance
regarding the part where you trust brands blindly, e.g. like if you girlfriend told you that red t –
shirts suit you really well, then you do not question it, you are going to wear a red t -shirt way
more than before. Likewise, expert advices from brands are taken to you and used in a similar
way to the advice from you girlfriend.

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

144
However, in terms of being able to tell the other part of the relationship that something great is
happened only exists in interpersonal relationships and this is definitely a critical aspect. So I
guess the trust part and being dependent on someone can be compared, but that is just one aspect
of it, but in many other aspect it is not at all the sam e.
Interviewer: Can you explain what your interest is in being loyal to brands?
Morten: Well, for instance Football Manager, I buy that pre -release every single year, simply
because I sincerely want to support the brand behind it, I could easily download it if I wanted,
but I really want to support the brand. I of course also like the game, but I am definitely a
support of the brand behind the game. In reality, I could play the game in two years before I
needed a new version, but because I like what the brand is doing is so good, I want to support
them. The same is the case with FIFA for instance.
I feel that if a company makes a great product, you also owe that company to buy that product
and support the brand. If we think of another product category wh ere it is possible to buy copy
products, I absolutely never does that, simply because I feel that I own the original company to
support their product because of the hard work they have made to create this product. But
contradictory, if we look at Arla and their Milk products and where they own a lot of
subsidiaries where there is exactly the same milk in two different cartons with different labels
and brands on it, I will always choose what is cheapest because I know that there is the same in
both products. But it is still Arla Milk, so I still support and follow their brand and I only buy
milk that Arla has produced. So in this case my loyalty is probably more price oriented, and
that’s the case with many everyday products. But in relation to electronics i t’s often not the case
because I associate cheap with crap within that category.
Interviewer: How do you see a connection between being loyal to a brand and have a
relationship to that same brand?
Morten: I think it is the same. If you are loyal to a bra nd, you also have a relationship with it.
And it is difficult for you to see if competitors create a product that is equally good or maybe
even better, you can’t really accept it if you are really loyal to a brand. For instance the classical
discussion bet ween Mac versus windows. Today, it is basically totally the same in terms of
quality and opportunities, but as mac -user you have a very hard time accepting that a windows
machine can be as good as a mac machine or the opposite. And then people start to dis cuss tiny
details as e.g. in a mac system you are in a locked system and do not have any freedom, but if
you asked a windows user how often they use their freedom they would not be able to answer

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

145
it, invalidating the claim. Oppositely, a mac user would cla im that there are so many issues with
the use of windows, but in reality, many things are not compatible with mac, so again it is not
really true.
What I am trying to say is that, if you are loyal to a brand you try to find these small excuses
not to use competing brands even if we might know that the product they developed is just as
good or better. The reason we do this is probably because it hurts a bit if a competitor to a brand
you are loyal to, develops something great, and that is probably because y ou also feel like you
have a relationship to that brand. Therefore, we have the need to justify to ourselves that we are
still loyal to the brand by making up these excuses for continuing to use a brand or not to switch
to a competitor.
Interviewer: I think that was it, thank you for all of your extensive responses.
Morten: You welcome, good luck with your dissertation.
Transcript Peter
Interviewer: Can you try to explain the degree to which you like brands and whether they are
important for you?
Peter: I would like to be able to say that I don’t like brands and that they are not important, but
I guess they do matter and they are what I am looking for when I buy things.
Interviewer: If they are important for you, what kind of attachment do you feel you have with
brands?
Peter: That is difficult to say. I think that within some of the bigger categories as television,
other electronics and maybe clothing I may have some preferences towards some brands. But
I’m not sure I would say that I have a close att achment to any specific brands. I think I always
try to look for brands that I know and I try to avoid brands I do not know and discount brands .
Interviewer: How do you feel that this is connected to your level of interest in brands?
Peter: I don’t feel o verly attached to brands, and I don’t feel like I’m really interested in brands.
So in that way it is connected. But even though I’m not so interested in brands, I think that in
some way, I still subconsciously select brands that I might have a greater int erest in than I have
in other brands. I guess that I often select brands just because I know them and maybe because
I have tried the products before and know that it works or are good.

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

146
Interviewer: Considering this, what are the chances that you recommend brands or advice
against brands?
Peter: It is quite rare that I recommend brands or you know make reviews online or something.
I do not remember the last time I did it at least, but of course, it has happened, but I would not
say that it is something I do just because I like a brand. I definitely "warn" people from brands
if I have had a bad experience, but I am not the type of person to put it on social media or
something. It is just when I talk with family and friends .
Interviewer: Can you try to explai n how you feel about the attempts brands make to get you as
a loyal customer? I would like to know if it is something you notices, ignores, like or maybe
something that annoys you?
Peter: I like the concept that you reward people that are loyal. I still fe el that I can make my
own choice of where to buy a product or what product to pick. In that way, I like the concept
of giving something both ways. They earn some money on me and I may save some money,
which is kind of a win -win situation. However, I would like to add that it really depends on the
situation and the way brands handle it. I know I often give my permission to receive things from
brands, but in many cases I just receive so much more than I was expecting, hell I think some
of then send me means a lmost every day. In those cases, it simply just annoy me. They always
tell you that they will only send "relevant" news or special offers, but I actually often feel that
I receive things so often that it feels kind of inconvenient and annoying.
Interviewe r: And what are the implications of this?
Peter: I think you could say the opposite of what brands intend, or what the purpose is, as I get
annoyed and irritated on the company that constantly contact me. Therefore, I think it instead
pushes the customer away that drawing them closer.
Interviewer: Can you elaborate on this?
Peter: Sure, I think that to put it simply, I like the concept, but the problem occurs when there
is little connection between the expectations that I have, when I e.g. accept to recei ve these
offers, then I feel that I say yes to less than they actually give/send me.
Interviewer: Can you try to explain why you are interested or uninterested in a relationship with
a brand?
Peter: In some ways, I guess that I am interested, but in some other ways, I am not. It depends

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

147
on the context, I would say. In certain situations, I can give me a sense of feeling that my
opinions matter and that I matter, but in other cases a brand is simply not interesting enough for
me to want a relationship with the brand, even though I might find that the brand has good
products and might buy it now and then.
Interviewer: Do you believe that these relationship offerings, for instance emails, newsletters,
sales clerks, loyalty programs, membership programs or an y other activity that directly attempts
to build relationships with you affect you positively or negatively?
Peter: As I mentioned a bit earlier, I think that it depends on the situation. I can see situations
where it affect me positively but definitely al so situations where it affects me negatively. Again,
I would say I depends on whether I receive a number of offers that fit with my expectations of
what I would like to receive. Or you know, maybe I’ve accepted that from a given brand I would
like to recei ve their newsletter, but if I by saying yes expect that to be one newsletter a months
and reality it is 3 per week, I will definitely be annoyed and irritated. Oppositely, if they only
send one per months, and that is what I expect, I would surely also be affected positively.
Interviewer: What does this mean in relation to your intentions to purchase or repurchase a
product?
Peter: That my intentions to purchase or repurchase could both be affected negatively and
positive. I do not know if I could say that I am more inclined to be affected positively or
negatively, but both things could easily happen, dependent on the situation as I just explained.
Interviewer: And what about in relation to your level of brand loyalty?
Peter: I think that is the same as my intention to purchase or repurchase. It can be affected
positively as well as negatively.
Interviewer: And the last one, what about in relation to your intentions to recommend a brand?
Peter: I think that is the same again.
Interviewer: Can you try to e xplain the degree to which you are involved with brands, if you
are?
Peter: I am not really that involved with any brands. But still, to some degree, I guess I am since
I feel closer to some brands than I do to others. But in general I would say that I’m not overly
involved with brands.
To what degree are you actively engaging/interacting with brands for instance online, on social

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

148
media or other platforms?
Peter: That is very very limited. I don’t use that much time on social media and if I ever need
to get a hold in companies, maybe to complain or to request a refund or some money back
following a bad experience I always contact them personally e.g. via. Mail or phone. However,
I also guess that this is because I work in the kind of business that I does ( insurance salesman).
Interviewer: Can you try to explain your motivations for communicating with brands, what do
you want to achieve with it?
Peter: Typically, I would say it is because I have trouble with e.g. their products, or it might be
because they have made some changes and I am probably more inclined to call and complain
than call and praise them. But for instance the other day I contacted my bank regarding some
troubles where they provided excellent service and then I of course said thanks for the ir service
and help. So in that way it can go both ways if they are able to solve the problems properly.
Can you try to explain some of the positives and negatives of interacting with brands, even
though you do not do it that much yourself?
Peter: Yehr. As you said, I do not interact that much with brands, but I would say that on the
positive side, you could say that those brands that try to interact with me probably have an
advantage when I go to the store and have to pick a product. I think because I at some level
subconsciously remember the product name or recognize the brand. But again, I would say that
what really matters is still whether I can accept or like the way in which they try to approach
me. If they approach me constantly and constantly remin ds me of their latest products or
discounts or whatever, I would probably make sure not to pick this product in the store, simply
because what I remember when standing in the store is their damn annoying ways of contacting
me always.
Interviewer: If brand s tries to communicate with you, what determines whether you perceive
that communication as positive or negative?
Peter: Definitely the volume of communication I would say. For instance, when you sign up to
newsletters, you are more or less spammed with " good offers". An even though you said yes to
these things in the first place and actually asked for them, because you like the brand and
actually like to hear from them, sending too much doesn’t do any good for me. Enough is
enough.
Interviewer: Can you g ive an example:

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

149
Peter: Takeoffer. I actually signed up for their newsletter a while back, but then they more or
less spammed me with five e -mails a day. That may be an exaggeration, but you know what I
mean.
Interviewer: How do you see a connection betwee n a brand interacting with you and you being
loyal to a brand?
Peter: In moderate quantities, interaction can make me more inclined to be loyal to a brand.
However, if it passes a certain limit, or well I guess my own limit, then I will have the opposite
effect. But to be honest, I actually prefer if the only times I communicate with a brand is when
I myself choose to initiate the contact.
Interviewer: What about in terms of having a relationship with a brand? Does interaction
encourage this?
Peter: No m atter how much I love a brand, let us say, the greatest brand in the world, according
to me, I would still never be interested in daily interaction with them and news from them,
absolutely not. It would slowly drive me away and at some point, it would simp ly annoy me so
much that I would start looking for other brands, even though I in every way actually like this
brand and their products.
Even if I really like a brand and buy it quite often or might feel like I have a relationship with
a brand, I will not necessarily like to hear from the anyway. I could easily live with the silence;
it would not change my loyalty at all. There can be situations where I might be interested in a
few news and good offers from brands, but always in small quantities. Therefore , I would say
that interaction might be able to make me more loyal, if my expectations are fulfilled, but I do
not know if they could actually give me the desire to have a relationship with a brand. I think it
is something more deeply held that might come more naturally than as a result of brands attempt
to create this relationship. At least that is my personal opinion.
Interviewer: Can you try to explain what a relationship is to you – A normal interpersonal
relationship, what defines it?
Peter: It is abo ut reciprocal respect on an overall level, where you respect each other and do
things for each other. It is important that there is not too little or too much, it needs to be a
balance. In a way, you can say that the relationship needs to be equal, we need to treat each
other equally and both give and receive something.
Interviewer: Now, can you try to compare this to your definition of a relationship with a brand?

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

150
Peter: In certain ways, it reminds of the same. There needs to be some reciprocal respect, I do
not want them to waste my time unnecessarily e.g. with mails and offers without any grounds
for this, as this would only annoy me. Likewise, I try not to waste their time and be an
"unreasonable" customer that just exploit my power.
Hmm, but still, no w that I think about it. There are also some major differences. Because, while
you might call it a relationship it is a kind of relationship that I am willing to dump for just one
bad experience. That is very different from a relationship where mistakes ha ppens all the time,
but because you have a deeper connection, you forgive each other and often everything ends
well. Therefore, this is a very different kind of relationship and level of loyalty in the sense that
so little needs to happen before I simply c hoose to buy another brand. You could say that it is
human to fail, and therefore people forgive. But if brands fail, you don’t forgive as easily
because there are almost always other great options to try. It might not even be because the
brand I currentl y use makes a mistake, maybe I just try another brands that provides an even
greater service or products, which I then decide to switch to.
Interviewer: Can you give an example?
Actually, I have a good one yes. Until a few year ago, I almost always travel led with Falck
Lauritsen (travel agency), when I had to book my vacation, I think I’ve been on at least 4
vacations with them. I always looked at their website first, and they are actually not that cheap,
so often I even chose to order a trip from their we bsite even though I very well knew that I
could save 100 euro or more on the exact same trip by ordering from another company.
Nevertheless, I did order it at Falck Lauritsen because I knew that if I booked the trip here, I
was certain that everything was good and would work according to plan. I felt safe you could
say. However, in one vacation, I had ordered an island roundabout in a jeep where they had
promised Danish -speaking guides, but in reality, no one spoke Danish, English or any other
language that we could understand. Therefore, I requested my money back, which they were
unwilling to give. Ever since, I have never travelled with Falck Lauritsen. Before, I would
consider myself a very loyal customer, but still, after just one negative experience, I
immediately dropped the company, and I am sure that I will never book a vacation with them
again. I think that shows quite well the difference between an interpersonal relationship and
relationship with a brand. In a relationship with a brand, I am the onl y one who have power,
therefore it is so easy to find something else as soon as you are unhappy with something and
they are unable or unwilling to fix it.

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

151
Interviewer: What is your interest in being loyal to brands?
Peter: Well, I would say that I am loya l to a number of brands. However, I would not say it is
any kind of strong loyalty. I think I just buy many of these brands because I’m used to them
and are happy with the quality of the product and not really because I have any particular interest
in the brands or interest in supporting and helping this brand. I just buy them because I know it
works or tastes great, I do not really care whether I support the brands or show my loyalty to
the brand. If I find another product that tastes better or works bette r, I would probably switch
to that product without thinking for a second.
However, I am probably more loyal to different kinds of shops than actual product brands
because I am happy with the service and treatment that is provided in that store. Then I jus t
search for those brands that I know within that store. So in my opinion you are more loyal to a
store than an individual brand or product . Products I often just select based on their functionality
and quality and of course price.
Interviewer: Are you lo yal to some brands?
Peter: I am loyal to some brands, probably also more than I think I am, but again it is not strong
loyalty. I do not think I can mention one brand that I have a deep emotional connection with,
and would stick with almost no matter what . Therefore, I think you could say that I have quite
many brands that I buy frequently but very few brands that I am actually really loyal to. I guess
there is a difference between just re -buying a brand and being loyal to a brand. At least I do not
see my self as loyal to many of the brands that I buy repeatedly.
Interviewer: How do you see a connection between being loyal to a brand and having a
relationship to that same brand?
I guess it depends on whether it is random loyalty or conscious loyalty. I mea n, if I specifically
choose to re -buy a brand because I want to support that brand, then I also want or have a
relationship with that brand. However, as I mentioned before, if it is more like out of habit that
I just buy a product repeatedly because I have used it before, and it has worked, then I am not
really interested in a relationship with that brand at all. I might not care or have any interest in
that brand, I just choose the product from the shelves because I’m happy with the quality of the
product.
Interviewer: Can you give an example?
Peter: For instance Faxe K ondi. I really like that soft drink and if I go to buy something to drink,

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

152
I probably choose that 9 out of ten times. However, to be honest, I have no interest in the brand
Faxe Kondi and I certainly do not buy the product because I want to support them or something
like that. I would not even be interested in any kind of news or anything form them, I just buy
them because they are of excellent quality, I just really like the taste, it is tha t simple. I like the
product, I often buy it, but I do not want to interact or be involved with them.
Interviewer: Can you sum this up by clarifying the difference between being loyal and having
a relationship with a brand?
Peter: I think there is a dif ference between being loyal and having a relationship with a brand
as well. You can be loyal to a brand, but not wanting to have a relationship with that same
brand, if the loyalty is not conscious as I mentioned earlier. However, the other way around, I
do not believe that it is possible to have the one without the others; at least I cannot think of
any examples. So I would say that if you have a relationship to a brand you will automatically
also be loyal to the brand. Having a relationship with a brand, for me, is associated with a closer
and deeper emotional bond than being loyal to a brand.
Interviewer: Do you have anything else you would like to add?
Peter: Yehr. Actually yes. I just thought about that sometimes I feel like I have a relationship
with brands, but I am not loyal to those brands. For instance B&O and Audi. I really like these
brands; I think they have excellent quality and design, but I am not loyal to any of these brands
because there are many other things that just matter more. I might have a great relationship to
these brands, but my common sense and their high price level just means that I never buy these
products. And you know, no type of excellent communication or newsletters or alike would be
able to change this. I would not be able to make any difference, because my common sense
naturally makes me consider whether any product gives good value for money, and for me,
paying so much extra for a beautiful design is just not something I am willing to pay, even
though I think the design i s excellent and I like everything about the product.
Oh, I just realised one funny thing . As you can see, right now I am wearing a Nike t -shirt and
Adidas pants. Two great competitors, but I wear them both. And this is actually quite random
it's not like I consciously chose this Nike t -shirt instead of an Adidas shirt or the opposite. I do
not really have any kind of relationship with any of these brands. I would say I consider them
equal.
Interviewer: If we imaging that one of these two brands started se nding you newsletters and

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

153
tried to form a relationship with you, would they be likely to get the upper hand compared to
the other brand?
Peter: It really depends on the quantity of mails because if they send me something every day
a week it would simply an noy me, and at some point I’m quite sure that it would result in me
preferring e.g. Adidas if it was Nike who "spammed" me. Maybe to try to punish them, you
know, I am thinking that if they annoy me then I am just going to buy my stuff from their worst
competitor. But if they send me something a couple of times a year or send me offers on specific
things that are relevant for specific season e.g. football boots I might be quite happy about it
and exploit that they send me great offers.
Transcript Mette
Interviewer: Can you try to explain the degree to which you like brands and whether they are
important for you?
Mette: Brands are important because they make it much easier for you as a consumer when you
know what your preferences are, because it is much easi er to buy things as you can make each
purchase faster, with less decision to make.
Interviewer: Considering that brands are important for you, what kind of attachment do you
feel you have with brands?
Mette: That depends a lot on what type of brand it i s. For a lot of brands I just buy what is
cheapest, for instance with food related products or clothes so those brands I do not really think
about, but for instance with telephones, computers and so on I definitely feel closer to them
because within this c ategory I think that quality is more important. That is probably why I have
an iPhone.
Interviewer: How do you feel that this is connected to your level of interest in brands?
Mette: I am not really that interested in brands, it is not really something t hat I think about; it is
just something that occurs. I do not really read the news about brands or that.
Interviewer: Considering this, what are the chances that you recommend brands or advice
against brands?
Mette: I recommend brands sometimes even thoug h I am not that highly interested in brands,
nevertheless you can still have bad or good experiences that you feel like sharing. Nevertheless,
it is not something that I do often, and mostly I would say that I advise against brands more

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

154
than I recommend.
Interviewer: If you recommend or advice against brands is that only to your family or friends,
or do you use the internet e.g. social media?
Mette: Only to my family and friends – I never really make any good or bad reviews publically
on social media, Tru stpilot or somewhere like that. I do not really want to waste my time on
that. But if I’m with friends or family I don’t really waste any time if I talk about a good or bad
experience about a brand, then it is instead just a topic of discussion.
Interview er: Can you try to explain how you feel about the attempts brands make to get you as
a loyal customer? I would like to know if it is something, you notices, ignores, like or maybe
something that annoys you?
Mette: For instance, I receive a lot of membershi p offers, discounts and that in emails from
clothing stores. However, I never really check any of these mails. I usually just delete them
without ever checking the content. But then, a few times if I feel like having new clothes then
I might open an e -mail once a while and see what they are offering to see if I can save some
money. Else, I am not really signed up for anything. I do not think I have any membership cards
or that. However, I do receive many emails during a week that I just delete week after we ek,
and basically all of those are some that I receive by mistake because I forgot to say that I did
not want to receive an e -mail when I might have bought something.
Interviewer: And what can the implications of receiving these relationship offers be, po sitive
as well as negative?
Mette: For instance with the emails. I just delete them but does not really think about it anymore
than that. If it really annoys me, I will just block it and mark it as spam. But in general I actually
think it is positive, not because what they are sending me makes me like the brand, but I believe
that subconsciously I will remember those brands because I automatically see their name and
are reminded about them. So in that way I think it can be positive.
Interviewer: And on th e negative side?
Mette: I do not really think it is that negative. Even though I delete it, the consequences are not
negative. If it annoys me I mark it as spam, but I do not think that it is so violent that it annoys
me directly. So it don’t bothers me t hat much, but of course it can sometimes feel as if they try
to approach me inappropriately.

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

155
Interviewer: Do you believe that these relationship offerings, for instance emails, newsletters,
sales clerks, loyalty programs, membership programs or any other activity that directly attempts
to build relationships with you affect you positively or negatively?
Mette: I do not consider it to impact be negatively, so I would have to say positively. And it
does so by reminding me of the brand. Which subconsciously affects me, which I believe
benefits the brand.
Interviewer: What does this mean in relation to your intentions to purchase or repurchase a
product?
Mette: I think that it has a subconscious influence, but it is not that often that these things can
result in a purchase or repurchase. However, a few select times it may have a positive effect.
Interviewer: And what about in relation to your level of brand loyalty?
Mette: I am not sure. I think that being reminded about a brand is positive for brands, even
though I’m only reminded when I e.g. have to delete their email I think I will forget this when
I have to buy a product, but subconsciously I will remember the product in a buying situation,
which I think is good for brands. But this is probably also just b ecause I am the type of person
that are not that easily offended and annoyed by receiving these stuff. And because my feelings
about it are not that strong, I think that it is positive.
Interviewer: And the last one, what about in relation to your intenti ons to recommend a brand?
Mette: I think that it could make me recommend it if the offers were good enough. If there was
enough to save by being a member or exploiting this offer or alike I might tell my friends if I
am able to share this experience with m y friends.
Interviewer: Can you try to explain the degree to which you are involved with brands, if you
are?
Mette: I am definitely not very involved with brands. I also hope that I am independent of
brands.
Interviewer: Why do you hope that?
Mette: I would like to believe that I am able to select the best brand to the best price, to be able
to get value for money. I do not hope that I am "deceived" by a brand because I for instance
like their image. I do not hope that brands are able to blind me if you understand. Therefore, I
am also highly price oriented.

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

156
But I can definitely understand why people are involved with brands. I think that it is something
evolutionary; I actually think I read about this at some point. It was about that to save time and
energy we create relations to brands, as there is no reason always having to use time finding the
best and cheapest products. Most people just do not have the time for it, even though comparing
products and prices are much easier today.
To what degree are y ou actively engaging/interacting with brands for instance online, on social
media or other platforms?
Mette: To a very limited degree. I read a few blogs, but I never comment on social media or
give my opinion or that. Therefore, it is actually not that co mmon for me to engage with brands,
and I do not really think that people on my age do it that much. I think it is mostly people at 25,
or maybe even older, I would actually say 30 that shares their opinions about the products that
you have and interact wit h brands more.
Interviewer: Do you communicate with brands if we look aside of social media, via phone or
email for instance?
Mette: Actually, no. Almost never at least, of course I sometimes may have a defect product
that I might need returned or I migh t need a bit of guidance which I have been completely
incapable of finding anywhere else, in those cases I might communicate with brands very
briefly to solve the problem.
Interviewer: What could make you want to communicate with a brand?
Mette: Only if I really need customer service.
Interviewer: If brands tries to communicate with you, what determines whether you perceive
that communication as positive or negative?
Mette: I am not really affected negatively by the communication I receive because it is not
something that can make me angry or something, I am good at ignoring that.
Interviewer: Can you try to explain some of the positives and negatives of interacting with
brands?
Mette: I think the reason why I try to avoid interacting with brands is that I am not interested in
it, and therefore I avoid it because I feel like there is no point in brands wasting their time on
communicating with me.
For instance, Apple, I like Appl e and I am very satisfied with my IPhone. Nevertheless, I really

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

157
do not want to receive any news, offers or emails from Apple. And I think that this applies for
all the brands that I like, and it doesn’t matter whether the information they send is related to
offers or products or just relevant content. So in that way I tried to avo id interaction and try to
avoid that either of us wasted our time, so I cannot really say much about the positive and
negatives of interaction.
Interviewer: Can you try to explain what a relationship is to you – A normal interpersonal
relationship, what d efines it?
Mette: I would say that it involves trust, communication and, well, I do not really know.
Interviewer: Try to elaborate
Mette: It involves many things, but I would also say different things dependent on who the
relationship is with, but the ess ences is good communication, being able to talk together and
trusting each other.
Interviewer: Now, can you try to compare this to your definition of a relationship with a brand?
Mette: I think that the words I just used is probably very good to describe this as well. It is about
good communication from consumer to brand and the other way , and some loyalty.
So you believe that these two types of relationships are similar or different?
Mette: I really hope that they are different. I think they are differe nt. For me it does not at all
connect regarding the level of loyalty. The level of loyalty, trust and communication may all be
elements involved in both type of relationships, but the level of each thing in an interpersonal
relationship is just so much hig her. I not at all able to understand the deep deep feelings for
brands, because it is so far away from how I feel.
I actually think it is rude to compare a personal relationship with a relationship to a brand, but
well, maybe someone truly has these deep feelings from brands, I just do not understand it. I
truly hope that an interpersonal relationship is involved around much much stronger feelings
that a relationship to a brand, brands are just so easily replaceable. If you like a brand and they
disappoint you, you find a new one. If you like a brand, but find another brand that is similar
but cheaper, you select that brand. If this were how you acted with your interpersonal
relationships, the world would be a messed up place.
Interviewer: What is your int erest in being loyal to brands?

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

158
Mette: I am loyal to some brands, but not because of interest, I would say. And I am not 100%
loyal to any brand, I will always be likely to change a brand if I find something better, cheaper
or something. I am not that stro ngly attached to any brand. However, I often shop in the same
stores e.g. Selected and Garderobe, and of course, I buy a lot of brands again without feeling
loyal to that brand or without having an interest in supporting this brands. Sometimes you also
just buy a brand or from a place, because that is where your friends buy from.
But when I think about it, I guess I am a little bit loyal towards some of the more expensive
brands, but since I am a student I am also forced to be reasonable and of course, the refore I am
also really price oriented. But if money were not a problem, I think that it might be different.
Then I guess I would pay extra for well -known brands just to be sure that it would work, taste
good and sustain. However, it is mostly about the se curity or trust that if I pay more, then the
product will work exactly as I want it to. I do not really care about the brand image and I do not
want to pay extra just because the design is well known. For instance, I now have a beige hoodie
to 80 DKK from H&M, and my friend just bought almost an identical hoodie for 500 DKK, the
only difference is basically the brand. Even if I had money, I would not buy the one to 500 DK
because I am certain that the cheap one will last just as long, here I would just pay for the brand
name, which I do not do. Not now and not in the future, I think at least.
Interviewer: How do you see a connection between being loyal to a brand and having a
relationship to that same brand?
Mette: I think that you can also have a negative relationship to a brand, in which you of course
not are loyal to a brand. Else, I just think that relationships are more emotionally deep. Loyalty
can have different degrees I would say, and if you are highly loyal and really passionate about
a brand I th ink it will naturally evolve into a relationship.
Interviewer: Do you have anything to add?
Mette: Well, I think it was an interesting topic to discuss. Actually, I also think that some of
these things differs simply dependent on whether you are a man or women. I think that men are
more likely to just pick what it nearest; I think that women think more about it. At least that is
what my experience tells me. Usually men just want most shopping to be over quickly, meaning
that they just take what they know whereas women might investigate the different things a bit
more. It might be the opposite when you are dealing with more expensive and important
purchases though.

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

159
But you know, in general I’m just not the type of person that uses time thinking about brand s.
I understand that they are there and doing what they are doing, and yes, of course it makes lives
easier for all of us, but I rarely think about who created a product. I do not really think about
the brand on their image or if I bye buying from them sup ports a brand that supports great
causes. I would like to say that I do this, and that I e.g. only buy from brands that are
environmentally friendly and have great work conditions for all their employees, but in reality,
it just matters whether I fit in. W hat and where the product comes from really do not matter that
much and I do not think about that I support this brand buy buying a product from them.
Therefore, I is definitely the product that is most important for me, not the brand. I hope that
you coul d use this interview anyway though.
Interviewer: I definitely can. Thank you for your participation.
Mette: You Welcome.

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

160
Appendix 10 – Frequency of socio -demographic variables
The following frequency table of the socio -demographic ques tions and groups created for salary
and age shows that there are no missing data within these variables. It suggests that there have
been no data entry errors. Another supporting fact to this statement is found when comparing
the minimum and maximum values of the output with the allowable range of values for each
variable. They are all within their allowable ranges, thus suggesting no errors .
Statistics
Gender salary in groups age in groups Education level
N Valid 270 270 270 270
Missing 0 0 0 0
Range 1,00 2,00 2,00 2,00
Minimum 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00
Maximum 2,00 3,00 3,00 3,00

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

161
Appendix 11 – Descriptive statistics of summated scales
By using the “Descriptives” command, a compact and space -efficient output for all scales was
created.
As apparent from the following table, all scale variables have minimum and maximum values
within the expected range (1 -5) and all means seem reasonable i.e. they are within the expected
range. Each variable is approximately normally distributed, a judgemen t based on the skewness
values within the allowed range of -1 to 1. Deriving, each scale can be used for inferential
statistics that require the assumption of normality (Morgan et al., 2013).
Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std.
Deviation Variance Skewness
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error
Behavioural brand
loyalty(1 -2 ROs) 267 1,00 5,00 3,0187 ,61319 ,376 ,103 ,149
attitudinal brand
loyalty(1 -2 ROs) 266 1,25 4,50 2,9229 ,64221 ,412 ,020 ,149
intentions to recommend
a brand (1 -2 ROs) 266 1,00 5,00 2,6109 ,74220 ,551 ,373 ,149
behavioural brand
loyalty (3 -4 ROs) 266 2,00 5,00 3,5852 ,78271 ,613 -,043 ,149
Attitidinal brand loyalty
(3-4 ROs) 265 1,75 5,00 3,5396 ,76335 ,583 ,005 ,150
Intent ions to recommend
a brand (3 -4 RO’s ) 265 1,00 5,00 3,4623 ,86273 ,744 -,059 ,150
Engagement with brands 267 1,00 5,00 3,0487 ,83153 ,691 ,197 ,149
Level of brand loyalty 264 1,71 5,00 3,2386 ,64374 ,414 ,099 ,150
Involvement with brand 263 1,00 5,00 3,2909 ,80577 ,649 -,410 ,150
Commitment to brands 263 1,00 5,00 3,1274 ,83713 ,701 ,149 ,150
Valid N (listwise) 248

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

162
Appendix 12 – Distribution of responses related to motivation
The three most important motivations for engaging/interacting with brands has been highlighted
with yellow, whereas the three least important motivations are marked with blue.

Most important 2nd choice 3nd choice 10th choice 11th choice Least important
Row N % Row N % Row N % Row N % Row N % Row N %
To get disc ounts 48.7% 22.1% 15.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
To get general information
about the brand 3.4% 9.4% 14.3% 3.4% 1.1% 0.0%
To get exclusive
information about the brand 1.9% 3.8% 3.8% 7.3% 3.4% 2.3%
To feel connected to the
brand 0.8% 0.0% 1.5% 11.5% 14.9% 38.9%
To be part of a community 0.8% 1.5% 0.4% 9.5% 42.6% 18.6%
To participate in their
events 0.4% 3.0% 2.3% 6.8% 8.0% 6.1%
To get customer service 28.5% 40.4% 13.9% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0%
To submit opinion on
current products/services 0.4% 1.1% 1.5% 8.7% 5.7% 7.2%
To learn about new products 1.5% 4.6% 15.2% 3.8% 1.9% 0.4%
To submit ideas for new
products/services 1.5% 3.0% 2.7% 35.4% 13.3% 4.6%
To make reviews and
product rankings 0.8% 0.8% 0.4% 9.5% 6.1% 21.0%
To make a purchase 11.8% 11.0% 28.9% 2.3% 2.7% 1.1%

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

163
Appendix 13 – Paired samples t -test
T-Test comparing the means of the BBL variables when receiving 3 -4 RO s versus 1 -2. For all
pairs it is possible to conclude that means are significantly different – all gaps previously
computed are significantl y positive .
Paired Samples Statistics
Mean N Std.
Deviation Std. Error
Mean
Pair 1 I would intend to do more business with the brand (3 -4
RO) 3.74 268 .943 .058
I would intend to do more business with the brand (1 -2
RO) 2.85 268 .826 .050
Pair 2 I would intend to do less business with the brand (recoded
– scale reversed) – 3-4 RO 3.53 266 .983 .060
I would intend to do less business with the brand (recoded
– scale reversed) – 1-2 RO 2.76 266 .765 .047
Pair 3 I would not switch to a competitor, even if I have a
problem with the services I received (3 -4 RO) 3.71 268 .988 .060
I would not switch to a competitor, even if I have a
problem with the services I received (1 -2 RO) 3.44 268 .956 .058

Paired Samples Correlations
N Correlation Sig.
Pair 1 I would intend to do more business with the brand (3 -4 RO) & I would
intend to do more business with the brand (1 -2 RO) 268 .456 .000
Pair 2 I would intend to do less business with the brand (recoded – scale
reversed) – 3-4 RO s & I would intend to do les s business with the brand
(recoded – scale reversed) – 1-2 RO 266 .278 .000
Pair 3 I would not switch to a competitor, even if I have a problem with the
services I received (3 -4 RO) & I would not switch to a competitor, even if
I have a problem with the s ervices I received (1 -2 RO) 268 .396 .000
Paired Samples Test
Paired Differences
t df Sig.
(2-
tailed) Mean Std.
Deviation Std.
Error
Mean 95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
Pair
1 I would intend to do more business with
the brand (3 -4 RO) – I would intend to do
more business with the brand (1 -2 RO) .892 .928 .057 .780 1.003 15.734 267 .000

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

164
Pair
2 I would intend to do less business with
the brand (recoded – scale reversed) – 3-4
ROs – I would intend to do less business
with the brand (recoded – scale reversed)
– 1-2 RO .774 1.065 .065 .646 .903 11.862 265 .000
Pair
3 I would not switch to a competitor, even
if I have a problem with the services I
received (3 -4 RO) – I would not switch to
a competitor, even if I have a pro blem
with the services I received (1 -2 RO) .272 1.069 .065 .144 .401 4.171 267 .000

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

165
Appendix 14 – Paired samples t -test
T-Test comparing the means of the ABL variables when receiving 3 -4 RO s versus 1 -2. For all
pairs it is possible to con clude that means are significantly different – all gaps previously
computed are significantly positive

Paired Samples Statistics
Mean N Std.
Deviation Std. Error
Mean
Pair
1 I would be more likely to consider their products my first choice
when evaluat ing related products (3 -4 RO) 3.48 267 .951 .058
I would be more likely to consider their products my first choice
when evaluating related products (1 -2 RO) 2.77 267 .895 .055
Pair
2 I would stay loyal to the brand, as long as they stick to their promis es
(3-4 RO) 3.12 267 1.005 .062
I would stay loyal to the brand, as long as they stick to their promises
(1-2 RO) 2.39 267 .887 .054
Pair
3 In the future, I would be willing to pay a higher price for products
from the brand over competitive offerings (3 -4 RO) 3.82 267 .836 .051
In the future, I would be willing to pay a higher price for products
from the brand over competitive offerings (1 -2 RO) 3.40 267 .922 .056
Pair
4 I would commit myself stronger to this brand (3 -4 RO) 3.74 266 .914 .056
I woul d commit myself stronger to this brand (1 -2 RO) 3.12 266 .878 .054

Paired Samples Correlations
N Correlation Sig.
Pair 1 I would be more likely to consider their products my first choice when
evaluating related products (3 -4 RO) & I would be more lik ely to
consider their products my first choice when evaluating related
products (1 -2 RO) 267 .341 .000
Pair 2 I would stay loyal to the brand, as long as they stick to their promises
(3-4 RO) & I would stay loyal to the brand, as long as they stick to
their promises (1 -2 RO) 267 .351 .000
Pair 3 In the future, I would be willing to pay a higher price for products
from the brand over competitive offerings (3 -4 RO) & In the future, I
would be willing to pay a higher price for products from the brand
over co mpetitive offerings (1 -2 RO) 267 .491 .000
Pair 4 I would commit myself stronger to this brand (3 -4 RO) & I would
commit myself stronger to this brand (1 -2 RO) 266 .449 .000

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

166

Paired Samples Test
Paired Differences
t df Sig.
(2-
tailed) Mean Std.
Devi ation Std.
Error
Mean 95%
Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
Pair
1 I would be more likely to consider their
products my first choice when evaluating
related products (3 -4 RO) – I would be more
likely to consider their products m y first choice
when evaluating related products (1 -2 RO) .708 1.061 .065 .580 .836 10.906 266 .000
Pair
2 I would stay loyal to the brand, as long as they
stick to their promises (3 -4 RO) – I would stay
loyal to the brand, as long as they stick to their
promises (1 -2 RO) .738 1.082 .066 .607 .868 11.138 266 .000
Pair
3 In the future, I would be willing to pay a higher
price for products from the brand over
competitive offerings (3 -4 RO) – In the future, I
would be willing to pay a higher price for
product s from the brand over competitive
offerings (1 -2 RO) .412 .890 .054 .305 .519 7.564 266 .000
Pair
4 I would commit myself stronger to this brand
(3-4 RO) – I would commit myself stronger to
this brand (1 -2 RO) .617 .941 .058 .503 .730 10.681 265 .000

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

167
Appendix 15 – Paired samples t -test
T-Test comparing the means of the ITR variables when receiving 3 -4 RO s versus 1 -2. For all
pairs it is possible to conclude that means are significantly different – all gaps previously
computed are significantly po sitive .
Paired Samples Statistics
Mean N Std.
Deviation Std. Error
Mean
Pair 1 How likely would you be to say positive things about the brand
to other people? (3 -4 RO) 3.35 268 .993 .061
How likely would you be to say positive things about the brand
to other people (1 -2 RO) 2.45 268 .875 .053
Pair 2 How likely would you be to recommend the brand to someone
who seeks your advice (3 -4 RO) 3.33 267 .995 .061
How likely would you be to recommend the brand to someone
who seeks your advice (1 -2 RO) 2.38 267 .843 .052
Pair 3 How likely would you be to encourage others to do business
with the brand? (3 -4 RO) 3.40 267 .930 .057
How likely would you be to encourage others to do business
with the brand? (1 -2 RO) 2.55 267 .876 .054
Pair 4 How likely would y ou be to post positive messages about the
brand on some internet board? (3 -4 RO) 3.74 265 .897 .055
How likely would you be to post positive messages about the
brand on some internet board? (1 -2 RO) 3.06 265 .915 .056

Paired Samples Correlations
N Correlation Sig.
Pair 1 How likely would you be to say positive things about the brand to other
people? (3 -4 RO) & How likely would you be to say positive things about
the brand to other people (1 -2 RO) 268 .468 .000
Pair 2 How likely would you be to recom mend the brand to someone who seeks
your advice (3 -4 RO) & How likely would you be to recommend the brand
to someone who seeks your advice (1 -2 RO) 267 .466 .000
Pair 3 How likely would you be to encourage others to do business with the
brand? (3 -4 RO) & How likely would you be to encourage others to do
business with the brand? (1 -2 RO) 267 .381 .000
Pair 4 How likely would you be to post positive messages about the brand on
some internet board? (3 -4 RO) & How likely would you be to post positive
messages about the brand on some internet board? (1 -2 RO) 265 .499 .000

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

168

Paired Samples Test
Paired Differences
t df Sig. (2 –
tailed) Mean Std.
Deviation Std.
Error
Mean 95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
Pair
1 How likely would you be to say
positive things about the brand to
other people? (3 -4 RO) – How likely
would you be to say positive things
about the brand to other people (1 -2
RO) .899 .968 .059 .783 1.016 15.205 267 .000
Pair
2 How likely would you be to
recommend the br and to someone who
seeks your advice (3 -4 RO) – How
likely would you be to recommend the
brand to someone who seeks your
advice (1 -2 RO) .951 .958 .059 .836 1.067 16.218 266 .000
Pair
3 How likely would you be to encourage
others to do business with the b rand?
(3-4 RO) – How likely would you be
to encourage others to do business
with the brand? (1 -2 RO) .854 1.006 .062 .733 .975 13.868 266 .000
Pair
4 How likely would you be to post
positive messages about the brand on
some internet board? (3 -4 RO) – How
likely would you be to post positive
messages about the brand on some
internet board? (1 -2 RO) .683 .907 .056 .573 .793 12.253 264 .000

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

169
Appendix 16 – Scatterplot -matrix to check linearity assumption
Through inspection of the scatterplot -matrix it i s visible that the scatterplots between
involvement -commitment, involvement -engagement and engagement -commitment are quite
similar. Each scales have a positive direction of correlation and all points fit the line pretty well.
Thus, the relationship s can be classified as linear.

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

170
Appendix 17 – Correlations between commitment, involvement
and engagement
Correlations
Commitment to
brands scale Involvemen t with
brand scale Engagement with
brands scale
Commitment to brands scale Pearson Correlation 1 .673** .648**
Sig. (2 -tailed) .000 .000
N 263 261 262
Involvement with brand scale Pearson Correlation .673** 1 .670**
Sig. (2 -tailed) .000 .000
N 261 263 262
Engagement with brands scale Pearson Correlation .648** .670** 1
Sig. (2 -tailed) .000 .000
N 262 262 267
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2 -tailed).

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

171
Append ix 18 – Graphs concerning the most and the least important
types of motivation, depending on involvement
The graphs display the response patterns in relation to the most and least important types of
motivation, depending on the level of involvement with the brand.

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

172

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

173

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

174
Appendix 19 – Graphs concerning the most and the least important
types of motivation, depending on com mitment
The graphs display the response patterns in relation to the most and least important types of
motivation, depending on the level of commitment to brands.

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

175

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

176

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

177
Appendix 20 – Scatterplots for linear regression
Scatterplots for brand loyalty with each of the three independent variables. Dependent variable:
Brand loyalty; independent variables: commitment, engagement, involvement.

An inspection of the scatterplots reveals a positive linear relationship between b rand loyalty
and each of the three independent variables. No significant outliers were found.

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

178

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

179
Appendix 21 – Multiple linear regression output s
In between the outputs, an analysis of the different assumptio ns has been made to highlight that
all assumptions of the multiple linear regression model are upheld .

Descriptive Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N
Level of brand loyalty 3.2472 .64302 256
Involvement with brand scale 3.3105 .78938 256
Commitment to brands scale 3.1367 .83540 256
Engagement with brands scale 3.0664 .83021 256

Correlations
Level of brand
loyalty Involvement
with brand
scale Commitment to
brands scale Engagement
with brands
scale
Pearson Correlation Level of brand loyalty 1.000 .640 .637 .779
Involvement with brand
scale .640 1.000 .666 .665
Commitment to brands
scale .637 .666 1.000 .642
Engagement with brands
scale .779 .665 .642 1.000
Sig. (1 -tailed) Level of brand loyalty . .000 .000 .000
Involvement with brand
scale .000 . .000 .000
Commitment to brands
scale .000 .000 . .000
Engagement with brands
scale .000 .000 .000 .
N Level of brand loyalty 256 256 256 256
Involvement with brand
scale 256 256 256 256
Commitment to brands
scale 256 256 256 256
Engagement with brands
scale 256 256 256 256

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

180
Variables Entered/removeda
Model Variables Entered Variables Removed Method
1 Engagement with
brands scale,
Commitment to
brands scale,
Involvement with
brand scaleb . Enter
a. Dependent Variable: Level of brand loyalty
b. All re quested variables entered.

The Durbin -Watson va lue of 1.930 suggests that there
is independence of residuals.

Model Summaryb
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the
Estimate Durbin -Watson
1 .805a .648 .644 .38370 1.930
a. Predictors: (Co nstant), Engagement with brands scale, Commitment to brands scale, Involvement with brand
scale
b. Dependent Variable: Level of brand loyalty
ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 68.335 3 22.778 154.716 .000b
Residual 37.101 252 .147
Total 105.437 255
a. Dependent Variable: Level of brand loyalty
b. Predictors: (Constant), Engagement with brands scale, Commitment to brands scale, Involvement with brand scale
All the Tolerance values are greater than 0.1 and VIF valu es smaller than 10 (the lowest is 0.461).
Therefore, there is no problem with collinearity.
Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized
Coefficients Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig. Collinearity
Statistics
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) 1.080 .110 9.835 .000
Involvement with brand
scale .119 .045 .146 2.647 .009 .461 2.169
Commitment to brands
scale .134 .041 .174 3.239 .001 .486 2.059
Engagement with brands
scale .442 .041 .570 10.648 .000 .487 2.055

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

181
a. Dependent Variable: Level of bra nd loyalty

Collinearity Diagnosticsa
Model Dimension Eigenvalue Condition
Index Variance Proportions
(Constant) Involvement
with brand
scale Commitment to
brands scale Engagement
with brands
scale
1 1 3.920 1.000 .00 .00 .00 .00
2 .038 10.189 .90 .01 .10 .14
3 .024 12.787 .00 .00 .68 .67
4 .018 14.601 .09 .99 .22 .18
a. Dependent Variable: Level of brand loyalty

The P -P plot shows that the points are aligned along the diagonal line, thus suggesting that the
residuals are normally distribut ed.

Residuals Statisticsa
Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation N
Predicted Value 1.9074 4.3990 3.2472 .51767 256
Residual -.93290 .97528 .00000 .38144 256
Std. Predicted Value -2.588 2.225 .000 1.000 256
Std. Residual -2.431 2.542 .000 .994 256
a. Dependent Variable: Level of brand loyalty

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

182

You can see from the histogram below that the standardized residuals appear to be approximately
normally distributed. This supports the fin dings from the above P -P Plot.

An inspection of the scatterplot s below shows that the residuals are equally spread over the
predicted values of the dependent variables , thus suggesting homoscedasticity. In other words,
the assumption of homogeneity of variance is not violated.

THE CONSUMER -BRAND RELATIONSHIP PARADOX

183