collin lachaud_price_heart and brand strategy

8/2/2019 Collin Lachaud_Price_Heart and Brand Strategy

1/38

Working Paper 0

Working Paper

Share of Heart and Brand Strategy

Linda L. Price, University of Arizona

Avinash Malshe, University of St. Thomas

Eric J. Arnould, University of Arizona

February 2007

The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of Chuanyi Tang and Jung Kim,

graduate students, Retailing and Consumer Science, University of Arizona.


2/38

Working Paper 1

This study makes a strong case for understanding the broader context of peoples life

experiences as a basis for anticipating the constellation of brands with which relationships

are likely to developBrands cohere into systems that consumers create not only to aid in

living but also give meaning to their lives. Put simply consumers do not choose brands,

they choose lives. (Fournier 1998, 366-367)

Agenda

Conceptions of firm marketer relationships remain enmeshed in a dyadic and

product-/service centric viewpoint that we believe is inimical to cashing out the

implications of emergent conceptions that bring consumer co-creativity to the center of

marketing strategy. We begin with a brief review of current approaches to brand loyalty.

Then we outline what we mean by defining and positioning our share of heart approach

to loyalty We will then uncover some inductive results that show how firm-produced

resources, especially brands are situated in consumers everyday lives in ways somewhat

different than in Fourniers pioneering work (1998). We will then use extended examples

to make some of the same points and finally we identify some theoretical and managerial

implications.

What is Brand Loyalty?

Looking across a vast amount of marketing literature, several ways of thinking

about brand loyalty, which is a major way in which firms relationships with customers are

operationalized, stand out. Although some companies try to pay attention to all of these,

they may emphasize one over the other.


3/38

Working Paper 2

The first approach simply looks at the relationships between various brand

characteristics and brand loyalty, generally operationalized as repeat purchase intention

with positive affect (Oliver 1999). For example, typical of this research Esch, et al. (2006)

show in a paper using structural equation modeling that current purchases are affected by

brand image mostly directly and by brand awareness mostly indirectly. In contrast, future

purchases are not affected by either dimension of brand knowledge directly; rather, brand

knowledge affects future purchases via a brand relationship path that includes brand

satisfaction, brand trust, and attachment to the brand. Thus, brand knowledge alone is not

sufficient for building strong brands, but in the long term; brand relationship factors must

be considered as well. In other words, dyadic loyalty is strengthened via satisfaction and

affective factors. This paper has the merit of operationalizing both transactional and

communitarian dimensions of brand relationships, thus building on Fourniers (1998)

insights, in addition to the more common brand equity factors.

Other research asserts that brand loyalty is developed in ways that are more complex

than captured in firm and brand-centric quality builds satisfaction, satisfaction builds

loyalty models (Agustin and Singh 2005; Garbino and Johnson 1999; Price and Arnould

1999; Seiders et al 2005). Research that focuses on the experiences associated with

consumption has corroborated Olivers (1999) hypotheses about the embedded and

complex quality of brand loyalty (Coulter et al. 2003; Fournier and Yao 1997; Mittal and

Kamakura 2001; Mittal et al. 1999; McAlexander, Kim and Roberts 2003). This research

suggests that more enduring brand loyalties emerge from, and are strategically linked to

important aspects of life projects, roles and relationships with family, friends, other

customers and marketing agents (Bhattachary and Sen 2003; Fournier 1998; Moore et al.


4/38

Working Paper 3

2002; Oliver 1999). Curiously although Founier identified brand relationships driven by or

involving third parties-- arranged marriages, enmities and enslavements (Fournier 1998, p.

362)--all are brand relationships couched in negative terms. By contrast, in one context,

McAlexander, Kim and Roberts (2003) show empirically that brand community integration

trumps satisfaction as a loyalty driver.

Fourniers work (1998) and much subsequent research in the CCT tradition has

recognized the affective dimension of loyalty. Oliver recognizes various stages if not kinds

of loyalty, and argues for a concept that he calls ultimate loyalty. Ultimate loyalty involves

two relationship components foreign to general the brand loyalty literature, adoration or

focused attention and unfailing commitment. Adoration is much like affective commitment

and unfailing commitment is much like continuance commitment, a commitment based on

the desire to avoid the sense of loss associated with the absence of a long-time relationship

partner (Oliver 1999, p. 39). Consistent with McAlexander, et al.s (2003) work, Oliver

argues that ultimate commitment is the rarest kind of brand loyalty and is likely to be

driven by or correlated with memberships in important social collectivities.

The second approach to loyalty is a share of wallet approach. It considers how the

customer distributes disposable economic resources, the wallet, among competitors.

According to Kumar and Reinartz (2006), share of wallet (SOW) is defined as the

proportion of category value accounted for by a focal brand or a focal firm within its base

of buyers. It can be measured at the individual customer level or at an aggregate level.

Using slightly different terms, others have defined SOW as the share of business a

customer conducts with a particular service provider (Keiningham, Perkins-Munn, and

Evans, 2003), share of purchases in the category (Cooil, Keiningham, Aksoy, and Hsu,


5/38

Working Paper 4

2007), or simply, certain purchases with one seller (Nunes and Drze, 2006). Moreover,

SOW has been thought of being closely related to satisfaction (Keiningham, Perkins-

Munn, and Evans, 2003), customer retention (Perkins-Munn, Aksoy, Keiningham and

Estrin, 2005; Keiningham, Perkins-Munn, and Evans, 2003), and customer revenue

(Keiningham, Perkins-Munn, Aksoy, and Estrin, 2005). Pertinently, being viewed as the

ultimate measure of loyalty (Jones and Sasser, 1995, p.5), SOW has been used frequently

to operationalize loyalty behavior. (e.g. Cunningham, 1956, 1961; Broday and

Cunningham, 1968; Bowman, Farley, and Schmittlein, 2000; Baumann, Burton, and Elliot,

2005), more specifically behavioral loyalty (Garland, 2005; Lam and Burton, 2006), as

opposed to attitudinal loyalty.

A third approach that has become prominent is customer lifetime value (CLV).

This strategic focus emphasizes the life time value of customers. CLV is referred to in the

literature with several different terms, such as customer valuation (Dwyer, 1996), customer

lifetime valuation (Dwyer, 1989), customer relationship value (Wayland and Cole, 1997),

customer equity (Blattberg and Deighton, 1996), and consumer profitability (Mulhern,

1999). This perspective is well summarized by Rust, Zeithaml and Lemon (2000). CLV

properly adopts a definition of value adopted from finance. It is what something is worth

(the cash-equivalent price today that a buyer would be willing to pay to own the future

cash-flow benefits spring from the asset). Consistent with the fundamental principles of

finance, CLV can be defined as the present value of the cash inflows and out flows (not

profit) accruing to the firm over the lifetime of the customer relationship. Customer CLV is

the present value of future cash flows, whereas customer profitability refers to an

arithmetic calculation of revenues minus costs for a specified period of time.


6/38

Working Paper 5

Definitional issues aside, this approach has been demonstrated to increase the

bottom line for companies, and stresses the particulars of firms financial relationships

with customers. Authors have demonstrated empirically that the CLV approach to

maximizing customer equity and return on marketing expenditure does outperform other

predictive approaches such as current period customer value; share of wallet; recency,

frequency, and monetary value; and, expected spending potential (Venkatesan, Kumar and

Boulding 2005).

Some authors have been led to admit that some customers who have been low on

CLV in the past can transform to high CLV customers with an appropriately designed

marketing strategy, thereby providing higher ROI (Venktasen, et al. 2005, 24). Moreover,

the prediction accuracy is low for many CLV models. For example, Malthouse and

Blattberg (2005) found that of the predicted top 20% profitable customers, approximately

55% will be misclassified; of the predicted bottom 80% customers, approximately 15%

will be misclassified. Unfortunately, most of previous research focuses on developing new

modeling methods and data mining techniques, while limited attention has been paid to the

theoretical framework underlying CLV where insight leadin to improved prediction might

be found. Thus, some authors working in the area of customer lifetime value have argued

that if a firm seeks to maximize the total ofthe discounted life-time values for all its

customers it must understand what drives customer to buy from the firm (Rust, Zeithaml,

& Lemon 2000, 62). In other words, they recognize that CLV is driven by antecedent

factors that shape customers intentions.

All three of these approaches to loyalty have one drawback in that they provide little

insights into the broader world of customers experience that informs their intention to


7/38

Working Paper 6

enter the market for marketer-provided resources in the first place. In this vein, one of the

founders of CRM approaches from which CLV emerges reminds marketers, Now whats

in the customers interest in this situation? That is your guiding principle and further,

Taking the customers side of things is the No.1, by far, indicator of cross-sell success

(Peppers 2006). So, if CLV is the key to maximizing the total of the discounted life-time

values for customers, it still requires insight into situationally variable customer interests.

Unfortunately, drawing on his consulting experience, Peppers also remarks that the true

culture in most companies is that customers are just obstacles that lie between them and a

profit (Peppers 2006).

Some approaches that recognize the limitations of these firm-centric approaches to

understanding brand loyalty look either at loyalty as nested within more elaborate brand

spaces, pointing out how customers loyalties may be cyclical or contingent on the brands

perceived competitive or complementary relationships with other brands, which are

themselves nested in consumers life projects and values (Sherry 1987; Coupland 2005;

Ponsonby-McCabe and Boyle 2006). Holt (2004) has mounted an elaborate critique of the

first or mind share approach to brand loyalty and offered an alternative. His cultural

approach argues that iconic brand loyalties are linked to fundamental irresolvable cultural

contradictions. Iconic brand consumption enables consumers to episodically resolve such

contradictions. Thus, Holt (2003) writes consumers come to perceive the myth as

embodied in the product. So they buy the product to consume the myth and to forge a

relationship with the author: thebrand (p. 43) Further iconic brands embody not just any

myth but myths that attempt to resolve acute tensions people feel between their own lives

and society's prevailing ideology (p.44). Thus, Holt underscores the link between brands


8/38

Working Paper 7

and deep-seated cultural currents as experienced by everyday consumers. Still one

limitation of Holts approach is its focus on a special category of iconic brands rather than

the mundane brands that populate most of the brand landscape. How do they fit into

consumers lives and culture?

The origins of the corporate culture Peppers critiques lie beyond the scope of this

article, and in any event Holt (2005) has documented some of this. However, our aim is to

provide a fresh perspective on what the customers side of things is. Recall, first the

predictive weakness of CLV models. Recall next that customers loyalties may be nested

in consumers life projects and values (Fournier 1998). And finally note Olivers (1999)

recognition of the possible role of social collectivities in ultimate loyalty and

McAlexander, et al.s (2003) empirical demonstration that brand community is a loyalty

driver To anticipate, we argue that in many cases the key to customers intentions is to be

found in the relational life world the customer inhabits, a life world in which brands are

rarely more than minor actors, whatever their reciprocal value to the firm.

Why Do We so often Miss the Boat? It Matters How You Ask

The zealous emphasis in most approaches to loyalty may mislead in fundamental ways.

Most approaches tend to focus on the customers dyadic relationship with the firm as

represented by its brands, and elaborate models of the relationship of the latter to customer

behavior. By contrast, examining the life world of the consumer, we get an important

reality check. Brands are ubiquitous in consumers lives but they are minor actors in what

matters to consumers. By focusing on firms dyadic relationship with customers we may

miss out on their actual roles in consumers lives


9/38

Working Paper 8

The contrast between our approach and much of the brand loyalty work maybe be

illustrated by contrasting two question frames. Many researchers ask questions like, what

does brand X mean to you? With what brands do you have a relationship? Or To what

brands are you loyal? Or as in the SOW and CLV approaches they investigate behavioral

loyalty empirically but reduce the exchange relationships to the frequency and volume of

monetary exchange either now or in the future. This frame foregrounds the firm and its

brands, and naturally enough elicits interesting customer responses. At heart all these

questions are really share of wallet types of questions; what the firm wants to know is the

likelihood that customers like the brand and the extent to which this liking will convert to

ongoing purchase behavior.

If we are interested in collectivities impacts on loyalty and also on everyday, rather

than iconic brands we might wish to frame our questions differently, for example to ask, as

we have done in our empirical research, to what are you loyal? This is a share of heart

question. It recognizes, as work in relational commitment shows, that loyalty and

commitment are effortful, demanding, limited, and emotionally draining behaviors,

sometimes constrained in scope, but sometimes thought of lifelong.

Method

The field research through which we posed our questions consists of eighty-four

semi-structured long interviews with consumers located in a medium-sized Midwestern

metropolitan area. Because the purpose of data collection was theory construction we used

a theoretical sampling plan (Glaser and Strauss 1967, Miles and Huberman 1994). To

develop and elaborate an embedded loyalties framework, we wanted to sample people

likely to have multiple loyalty loci to juggle and balance. Although this applies to many


10/38

Working Paper 9

consumers, our research concentrates on people who have been singled out in depictions of

loyalty jugglerse.g., men and women who work full-time, often in professional roles,

with one or more children. These individuals often face major obstacles in coordinating

their personal and professional lives (Elloy and Smith 2004; Friedman and Greenhaus

2000; Sandholtz et al. 2002). Respondents are overwhelmingly married, with children in

the home ranging in age from 21 to over 64. Fifty eight percent of the informants are

women. Further, informants state that their key loyalties lie primarily with their spouses,

children, and other family members or occasionally to higher powers. Only about 7% of

the informants unaided responses to our questions about key loyalties include a brand or

service provider as an important loyalty.

For the majority of the interviews, we followed a semi-structured format, with

more open-ended interviewing of a smaller number (8) of informants. Each interview

unfolded differently based on interactive probing to clarify, elicit examples, distinguish

concepts and gain other insights (McCracken 1988; Thompson 1997). After a brief

description of the research project, each informant was invited to discuss six general

topics. To contrast with the firm-centric focus of much research on brand and service

loyalty, the order of questions was designed to frame informants thoughts about brand and

service loyalty in terms of their thoughts about broader patterns of loyalty and

commitment:

1. Relationships central to who you are and activities you engage in on a daily

basis.

2. The meaning of loyalty in the context of each of these important

relationships.


11/38

Working Paper 10

3. Strategies and problems encountered distributing time, energy and other

resources among different important loyalties.

4. A discussion of brands, products and services that you use primarily

because of each of these important relationships.

5. A discussion of brands, products and services that help you distribute time,

energy and other resources among different important loyalties.

6. A discussion of brands, products and services that you personally feel loyal

to, and the meaning of loyalty in this context.

Interviews lasted 30-120 minutes, with most in the 45-minute to 1-hour range.

Interview format, transcription and analysis met established guidelines for research on

human subjects. Reports of findings protect the identity of informants through the use of

aliases. All interviews were audiotaped, transcribed and scrutinized by hand and analyzed

with the aid of a computer-based text analysis package, NVivo. Through our analyses we

sought to uncover inter-theme consistency, contradiction, and surprise (McCracken 1988;

Price and Arnould 1998, Spiggle 1994).

Findings

Are Consumers Loyal and if so, To What?

Loyalty and commitment are important to our informants. A typical comment is:

I got to try and think. Um, yeah, loyalty is important. However, you have the

relationship because you are loyal and you are loyal because of the relationship.

The two things go hand in hand. Loyalty means we will think of one another

before acting and we will do our best to do what satisfies the family. Sacrifices

will be made, but that is what makes us strong and close. Loyalty reminds you of


12/38

Working Paper 11

the decisions that are best. Yeah, it requires some effort. But, the relationship is so

important that it can be easy to be loyal. However, you still must put some thought

into it. A lot of times what you think is best for you might not be best for the

family

In this informants word, loyalty is regarded as a relationship constituting practice; it is

effortful. Self-interest is sacrificed to communal regard. Personal sacrifice enriches

important relationships.

Our informants report a small number of important relationships that consume all their

time, emotional and physical energy, often leaving little time for self. Husband, children,

siblings, parents, nieces, nephews, and a couple of close friends that also have children are

among core loyalties. Comments include:

Mhmm. Id say my marriage, my husband yeah

I was just going to say and then my kids, so family first.

God, Wife (M), Family (Children: H, G, T and C)

Well, I would have to say my husband and my child.

My husband and two children

My family; my wife and children.

Important relationships for me include my parents, siblings, and friends in general.

My relationship with my husband is very important to me because without him I would

not have three wonderful children and a wonderful life.

Consumers Experience their Lies as a Tangle of Competing Loyalties

Informants explained that because of varying priorities among people who are important to

them, loyalty itself is experienced as a tangle of competing loyalties. Thus,


13/38

Working Paper 12

Depending on what day it is Im up at like 5 to 5:15 everyday. Im at the gym when

it opens at 5:30. Three days a week I lift and run and the rest of the time I just run

so I meet someone to run at like 5:45. Then I get home and get the kids up right

away, and you know, lunches have to get made... usually I try and do those the

night before, get the kids dressed, fed and three days a week my husband drives

them to school so that I can get here sooner. The two days a week that I dont come

into the officemy Tuesdays are incredibly scheduled. After dropping the kids off

at school I do Pilates every other weekprivate session. I go right from there to

my piano lesson for 45 minutes. From the piano lesson I stop home for like 30

minutes and grab lunch and then I come and I meet with my dissertation advisor for

like 4 hours and we do statistical analysis on the computer. So from 5:45 on

Tuesday morning to 5:30 at night I am scheduled solid with different things (TC,

female, married, 2 kids)

The biggest problem that I have with all these relationships is being able to attend

all of the events, meetings, and social activities surrounding these relationships.

Both my husband and I work, and our children are very involved in many activities.

My husband and I many times must divide and conquer which makes me feel

like I am short-changing some of my relationships. 23-Jennifer

In our data, loyalties are fundamentally in competition with one another. How to keep

spouse and children happy? How to get out of work in time to pick the children up at the

daycare before they charge a dollar a minute? How to balance the competing demands of

multiple children? How to make time for a final report and the Easter egg hunt? In the


14/38

Working Paper 13

worlds we explored, informants dont have time for sisters, parents, lifetime girlfriends

what makes marketers think they want a relationship with their brands? From this data a

suspicion arises that if firms are not taking the customers side in helping them manage

key relationships they are far less likely to be an important actor in their life world.

(Most) Customers Dont Care (Much) About Brand Relationships

In our interview data, we find that for the most part brands are incidental or absent

from discussions of loyalty and commitment. However, informants depict brands as

resources [or not] in managing competing devotions. Thus as Belk (1988) suggests, we

find branded objects are often bridges between consumers and their relationships with

other people:

Um, I feel loyal to purchasing these brands for my familybut I dont know if I actually

feel loyal to the brand itself.

I am not really loyal to any one brand. I just try to buy what is on sale. I am bargain

hunter. I got a set of Ping golf clubsfrom my dad. Then I got a set of Taylor Made

woods for a reduced price because a good friend of mines brother works for Taylor

made. And I find more balls on the course than I lose, so I dont even have to buy balls

(married, male, 52, strength coach).

I always try tojust buy local or small. Other than that, brand wise I just dont know. I

am also a price buyer so that dictates what brands I buy (male, 26-30, married).

Hmmm When it comes to just regular stuff that we use in our house, I dont really

I dont really think about it. We usually are looking for the lowest price when we buy

most of our everyday stuff. You know, an exception to that would be Ivory soap. We

always buy Ivory soap.


15/38

Working Paper 14

Well I dont think that I am so much loyal but that , I am used to that and I don t think

I even think about it when I buy it I just do (female, 26-30, single mother).

We decided that whatever phone service was most beneficial to the family at this time

was good. If something new comes up then we would be more than willing to switch.

So I wouldnt say that we are loyal to the brand, but we would not give up the product

or service anytime soon if it helps all of us out (male, 46-50, married, 3 adult children).

Nope. Well, maybe Sony, but really the biggest factor is again price. I dont personally

feel loyal to any of these products or brands. I mean, theyre just commercial products

after all.

We could illustrate page after page of informant comments such as those shown here. If the

discussion doesnt begin with brand loyalty but with what consumers care about and

juggle in their daily lives brand loyalty takes a different placefleeting, conditional,

nested in other relationships, polygamous.

Loyalty Strategies Grounded in Share of Heart

Overall, commercial loyalties claim only a small share of consumers hearts, but

our data also suggest commercial partners and their brands are strategic resources that

consumers draw on in order to juggle loyalties and commitments that are important to

them. This finding led us to develop a systematic typology of consumers strategies for

juggling their loyalties and the role of commercial products and services in those

strategies. The Table summarizes the strategies that our informants employ in juggling

their important loyalties, with illustrative informant quotes and examples of whether and

how partnerships with services, products and brands enter into these strategies.

_____________________


16/38

Working Paper 15

Insert Table about here

_____________________

The first strategy we identify for juggling significant loyalties is what we call

accommodation in which a person sets aside loyalty to personal preferences and beliefs

albeit contingently in order to enact commitments to a valued other. The first excerpt is

not atypical of accommodation in the pairing of brand loyalty to Old Navy with personal

aversion to the brand, while the second excerpt suggests that loyalty co-exists with a low

level of personal commitment to Subway or Cheerios.

The second strategy we identify is avoidance in which informants simply avoid

situations that lead to conflict between competing loyalties. In interpersonal relationships

this is quite commonly understood as the absence of hurtful behaviors. In our data on

interpersonal indicators of loyalty, sexual fidelity, a classic example of not engaging in

opportunistic behavior emerges, as does transparency in personal behavior, a trust-building

activity. Notice the interview excerpt in the third column suggests how informants use a

brand loyalty to avoid conflict.

A third strategy for dealing with competing loyalties is what we call cyclic

alteration. Here in what might be the classic juggling strategy fueled by an egalitarian

ethos (Thompson 1997), informants basically toggle between equally weighted, competing

priorities. A joint household purchase decisions for consumer non-durables may reflects

the use of commercial loyalties in this cyclic alteration strategy. In one situation the wife

prevails in one case and the husband in another via the mutual accommodation to each

partys priorities expected between committed partners. Data presented in the table shows


17/38

Working Paper 16

that parents may alternate brand choices to fulfill childrens competing loyalty demands.

However, few brands were explicitly named as partners in implementing these strategies.

The fourth strategy we identify is a dominating strategy in which informants

prioritize a particular commitment, which then comes to dominate others. Consumers

direct loyalty to the brand/organization may actually be very weak or insignificant in

such cases but consumer may still remain loyal to the brand/organization since the brand

consumption helps him maintain/strengthen his/her loyalty to a specific constituency. For

example, inertia with regard to loyalty to a particular brand of cell phone service is

explained by the value provided in connecting all members of the family, the higher

loyalty that drives the commercial loyalty. In the second case, friendship drives the brand

loyalty to Bakers floral department.

When loyalty to some partners produces or reinforces loyalty to other relationship

partners, we term this fifth strategy facilitation. The preferences of others to whom

informants are loyal can sometimes drive a brand loyalty as with the fast food brands

mentioned in the table. Or brand loyalty may simultaneously facilitate interpersonal

enactment of relational commitments as in the purchase of Sweetarts and Amarige

perfume. This strategy is evident in the tripartite relationships between brands,

communities, and individuals in some research on consumption and brand communities. In

youth subcultures peer group loyalties and cultural capital resources may drive brand

loyalties (Thornton 1996), while in a brand community like the Apple Newton users group

brand-related skills and activities drive interpersonal relationships (Muiz and Schau 2005)

The sixth strategy, multi-tasking differs from cyclic alteration in that informants try

to fulfill competing commitments simultaneously rather than sequentially. This strategy


18/38

Working Paper 17

may emerge when competing loyalties are heartfelt. Firms that offer on-site child care are

responding to this sort of multitasking approach to competing loyalties. The consumer

whose interview is excerpted in column three, uses a host of commercial aids, cell phones,

PDA, a calendar, and the like to keep up with all of her behavioral commitments. The

excerpt from a new data collection project on home meal assembly services also seems

apposite.

Outsourcing commitment to or partnering with another person or a commercial

provider, the seventh tactic we identify, was not so common among our Midwestern

sample in which nuclear families are perhaps overrepresented relative to US national

norms. Extended family and friends can be called on to service relational commitments.

This strategy is consistent with the research of Hochschild (2003, 1997; Hochschild and

Manchung, 1989) showing that families handle the array of competing demands

constituted in their work and family lives by outsourcing more functions to the

marketplace. The interview excerpt in column three provides a good example both of the

desire to fulfill a parental socialization norm, and of contracting with a branded

commercial partner to provide that benefit. While outsourcing lessons is nothing new,

national branding, i.e., Suzuki music studios, Waldorf schools is not fully developed. We

hypothesize that outsourcing will vary with informants endowment of cultural and

economic capital.

The eighth strategy we identified for dealing with conflicting loyalties is

procrastination, doing nothing rather than not doing enough. Self, spouse, parents and

other loyalty targets, may all receive short shrift in hope of some vague future recompense.

In our data, this strategy is associated with anxiety and other negative emotions.


19/38

Working Paper 18

Procrastination also exemplifies a situation where informants have not identified

commercial partners who can help them transcend the conflicts, dealing with a disabled

loved one, for instance, that result in procrastination. This strategy may represent

unexploited marketing opportunities since it implies consumers have not found brands that

enable them to contend with their loyalty conflicts.

A segmentation or partitioning strategy is a ninth way informants strive to contend

with competing loyalties. An informant anchors on the work or home environment and

gives priority to fulfilling commitments to the valued others associated with those two

environments while minimizing behavioral loyalties directed towards valued others in the

non-salient environment. In another case, other contending loyalties may be put aside

temporarily to focus on one loyalty object. As suggested by the excerpt in the table, this is

a case where lifestyle products can go a long way toward helping some informants

successfully partition domains of action and facilitate enactment of important loyalties, in

this case, to a personal project. We did not find much evidence of products offering

segmented solutions of other kinds.

Employing a selection rule or a higher order commitment for resolving conflicting

loyalties is an tenth strategy informants employ. Informants either try to identify a self-

identified normative imperative that they use to guide their action when loyalty objects vie

for attention, or adopt a more situational approach to determine where the need is greatest.

In one excerpt in our table a belief in reinforcing local community drives loyalty to

Fredericks coffee house. Religious commitments can serve as a useful guide for action

and help determine how to enact interpersonal commitments. Folk beliefs about health and

nutrition and belief in healthy lifestyles as a moral imperative is another approach to


20/38

Working Paper 19

determining how to enact interpersonal commitments (see Thompson 2005). We found

evidence for the use of this strategy in recourse to a brand like Weight Watchers. Weight

Watchers helps consumers deal with the kind of tension Holt (2004) identifies between

ideology and personal experience; the idealized female body; the obligation for self-

completion and improvement that steams from the 19th century Romantic movement, and

the internalized duty to discipline and normalize ones body (Thompson and Hirschman

1995), and finally ubiquitous therapeutic models associated with organizations of

institutional psychologism (Moisio and Beruchashvili n.d.)

Sometimes people find solutions that they believe enable them to fulfill multiple

moral commitments in one go. This sharing or integration strategy is the eleventh one we

can discern in our data. If consumers adopt sharing orientation, they may patronize

brand(s) that best satisfy goals of majority of constituencies they are loyal to.People seemto spontaneously evoke the commercial partners that help them achieve their goals of

enacting competing moral commitments, typically to multiple members of the family. The

Pixar, Crockpot, Thai Garden, Road Runner, and Hamburger Helper examples in the table

and others in our data exemplify the embedded, but relatively mundane loyalties

envisioned by Oliver (1999).

Simplifying is the twelth strategy we discern in our data that appears to be a variant

of the cyclic alteration or segmentation strategy some informants adopt. One might have

expected voluntary simplicity to surface in our data set, as previous research implies this is

a strategy consumers use to address some loyalty conflicts (Bekin, Carrigan and Szmigin

2005; Huneke 2005), but it did not. Here we find informants may bound a place or time in

which they focus on fulfilling a set of moral commitments. Or, they may turn to a single


21/38

Working Paper 20

firm or service provider for a host of solutions in order to simply their commercial

relationships as in the Dell excerpt. This resonates with Couplands (2005) discovery of

informants who in pursuit of an aesthetic commitment were loyal to a house brand across a

range of products.

Discussion

Summary

Predominant approaches to brand loyalty in marketing are firm-centric and dyadic

in orientation rather than customer centric and sensitive to customers relationship

priorities and the fact that customers are already embedded in a complex set of

relationships in which personal projects and persons compete for their attention.

Consumers expend physical and emotional assets trying to juggle and balance

commitments to multiple intra- and interpersonal loyalty loci. Consumers most important

loyalties rarely implicate brands/ organizations directly. Consumers loyalties to most

brands and organizations are relatively contingent and are mediated through more

important commitments. Consumers sometimes use brands/organizations to manage or

even produce committed relationships. Thus our data suggest a host of relational

antecedents that result in relatively contingent brand loyalties as byproducts of consumers

efforts to manage their important roles and relationships. In sum our findings lead us to

formulate a Share of Heart (SOH) Model of brand loyalties that can be diagramed as

shown in the figure. Here loyalties to brands are mediated through or moderated by other

significant interpersonal commitments or personal projects by the choices they make in

their lives as suggested in the epigraph quote from Fournier (1998).


22/38

Working Paper 21

____________________

Insert Figure about here_____________________

Implications

If our data is to be believed, most brands do not matter that much to consumers and

they probably do not want a relationship with them. Thus, customer-centric is not how

does my customer really feel about and use my brand, but instead is customers using firm

provided resources in the culturally, socially situated practices of everyday life. Companies

can identify new opportunities and increase customer lifetime value by understanding

where they are in consumers share of heart, that is understanding who and what really

matters to consumers. In general, brands/organizations can enable and enhance customer

relationships by leveraging how they interact with consumers significant commitments.

Our share of heart framework invites firms to change their orientation towards their

customers. It invites them to move beyond a myopic focus on a dyadic relationship

between the firm and the customer. It recognizes drivers of purchase behavior minimally

involve firm-customer relationships. It further recognizes drivers of customer lifetime

value minimally involve firm-customer relationships. And finally, it breaks the implicit

taboo by which customer share of heart is forbidden country to marketers. OurSOH

framework also invites firms to ask different questions strategic questions than how can I

increase my SOW or CLV. To increase SOH, firms should ask first, what role does my

brand play in what matters most to consumers? And second, they should ask, can I partner

better or in more ways to facilitate customers relationships that do matter?

Of course firms desire to provide more resources to customers and to capture more

economic resources from them as a result. The third column of the table outlines specific


23/38

Working Paper 22

managerial recommendations tied to consumers strategies. But how would you use these

consumer-centric insights to drive enhanced share of wallet or lifetime value in a SOH

framework? First, to increase customer retention firms should adapt their value

propositions to evolving customer loyalties over the personal and household life cycles.

Second, to attract switchers, brands should be better aligned with, or provide solutions to

customers competing interpersonal loyalties. Third, to increase long-term customer value,

brands should be aligned with higher priority and/ or more enduring customer loyalties.

Fourth, to increase share of wallet, brands should broaden the service they provide to

facilitate fulfillment of more key customer loyalties. Fifth, another way of increasing share

of wallet is to increase the social partnering points, kind of like the sensory touch points

envisioned in experiential marketing but attuned to key loyalties and commitments.

References

Agustin, Clara and Jagdip Singh (2005), Curvilinear Effects of Consumer Loyalty

Determinants in Relational Exchanges,Journal of Marketing Research, 62

(February), 96-108

Baumann, Chris, Suzan Burton, and Greg Elliot (2005), Determinants of Customer

Loyalty and Share of Wallet in Retail Banking,Journal of Financial Services

Marketing, 9 (3), 231-248.

Bekin, Caroline, Marylyn Carrigan, Isabelle Szmigin (2005), Defying marketing

sovereignty: voluntary simplicity at new consumption communities, Qualitative

Market Research, 8(4), 413-430

Belk, Russell W. (1988), My Possessions Myself, Psychology Today, 22 (July), 50-52.
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=0&did=1778754&SrchMode=1&sid=2&Fmt=6&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1171477944&clientId=43922http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=0&did=1778754&SrchMode=1&sid=2&Fmt=6&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1171477944&clientId=43922http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=0&did=1778754&SrchMode=1&sid=2&Fmt=6&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1171477944&clientId=43922http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=0&did=1778754&SrchMode=1&sid=2&Fmt=6&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1171477944&clientId=43922


24/38

Working Paper 23

Bhattacharya, C.B. and Sankar Sen (2003), Consumer-Company Identification: A

Framework of Understanding Consumers Relationships with Companies,Journal

of Marketing, 67 (April), 76-88.

Bowman, Douglas, John U. Farley, and David C. Schmittlein (2000), Cross-National

Empirical Generalization in Business Services Buying Behavior,Journal of

International Business Studies, 31 (4), 667-686.

Brody, Robert P. and Scott M. Cunningham (1968), Personality Variables and the

Consumer Decision Process,Journal of Marketing Research, 5 (1), 50-57.

Cooil, Bruce, Timothy L. Keiningham, Lerzan Aksoy, and Michael Hsu, (2007), A

Longitudinal Analysis of Customer Satisfaction and Share of Wallet: Investigating

the Moderating Effect of Customer Characteristics. ,Journal of Marketing, 71 (1),

67-83.

Coulter, Robin A., Linda L. Price and Lawrence Feick (2003), Rethinking the Origins of

Involvement and Brand Commitment: Insights from Postsocialist Central Europe,

Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (September), 151-169.

Coupland, Jennifer Chang (2005), Invisible Brands: An Ethnography of Households and

the Brands in Their Kitchen Pantries,Journal of Consumer Research, 32(June),

106-119.

Cunningham, Ross M. (1956), Brand Loyalty: What, Where, How Much?Harvard

Business Review, 34 (1), 116-128.

Cunningham, Ross M. (1961), Customer Loyalty to Store and Brand,Harvard Business

Review, 39 (6), 127-139.
http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/viewarticle?data=dGJyMPPp44rp2%2fdV0%2bnjisfk5Ie469%2bK5%2fCshd%2ff7Ebj3u2L8rawR7OlsEiurZ5KuKawUrOunmjLnPKK3%2bTxeeHq54fs3%2bJVq6%2buSK6utUm1qaSE3%2bTlVePkpHzgs%2bCM5pzyeeWzv2ak1%2bxVsKmxTraptEik3O2K69fyVeTr6oTS2%2faM&hid=105http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/viewarticle?data=dGJyMPPp44rp2%2fdV0%2bnjisfk5Ie469%2bK5%2fCshd%2ff7Ebj3u2L8rawR7OlsEiurZ5KuKawUrOunmjLnPKK3%2bTxeeHq54fs3%2bJVq6%2buSK6utUm1qaSE3%2bTlVePkpHzgs%2bCM5pzyeeWzv2ak1%2bxVsKmxTraptEik3O2K69fyVeTr6oTS2%2faM&hid=105http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/viewarticle?data=dGJyMPPp44rp2%2fdV0%2bnjisfk5Ie469%2bK5%2fCshd%2ff7Ebj3u2L8rawR7OlsEiurZ5KuKawUrOunmjLnPKK3%2bTxeeHq54fs3%2bJVq6%2buSK6utUm1qaSE3%2bTlVePkpHzgs%2bCM5pzyeeWzv2ak1%2bxVsKmxTraptEik3O2K69fyVeTr6oTS2%2faM&hid=105http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/viewarticle?data=dGJyMPPp44rp2%2fdV0%2bnjisfk5Ie469%2bK5%2fCshd%2ff7Ebj3u2L8rawR7OlsEiurZ5KuKawUrOunmjLnPKK3%2bTxeeHq54fs3%2bJVq6%2buSK6utUm1qaSE3%2bTlVePkpHzgs%2bCM5pzyeeWzv2ak1%2bxVsKmxTraptEik3O2K69fyVeTr6oTS2%2faM&hid=105http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/viewarticle?data=dGJyMPPp44rp2%2fdV0%2bnjisfk5Ie469%2bK5%2fCshd%2ff7Ebj3u2L8rawR7OlsEiurZ5KuKawUrOunmjLnPKK3%2bTxeeHq54fs3%2bJVq6%2buSK6utUm1qaSE3%2bTlVePkpHzgs%2bCM5pzyeeWzv2ak1%2bxVsKmxTraptEik3O2K69fyVeTr6oTS2%2faM&hid=105http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/viewarticle?data=dGJyMPPp44rp2%2fdV0%2bnjisfk5Ie469%2bK5%2fCshd%2ff7Ebj3u2L8rawR7OlsEiurZ5KuKawUrOunmjLnPKK3%2bTxeeHq54fs3%2bJVq6%2buSK6utUm1qaSE3%2bTlVePkpHzgs%2bCM5pzyeeWzv2ak1%2bxVsKmxTraptEik3O2K69fyVeTr6oTS2%2faM&hid=105http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/viewarticle?data=dGJyMPPp44rp2%2fdV0%2bnjisfk5Ie469%2bK5%2fCshd%2ff7Ebj3u2L8rawR7OlsEiurZ5KuKawUrOunmjLnPKK3%2bTxeeHq54fs3%2bJVq6%2buSK6utUm1qaSE3%2bTlVePkpHzgs%2bCM5pzyeeWzv2ak1%2bxVsKmxTraptEik3O2K69fyVeTr6oTS2%2faM&hid=105


25/38

Working Paper 24

Elloy, David F. and Catherine Smith (2004), Antecedents of Work-Family Conflict

Among Dual Career Couples: An Australian Study, Cross Cultural Management

11 (4), 17-27.

Esch, Franz-Rudolf ,Tobias Langner, Bernd H. Schmitt, and Patrick Geus (2006) Are

brands forever? How brand knowledge and relationships affect current and future

purchases,Journal of Product & Brand Management, 15(2), 98105.

Fournier Susan and Julie L. Yao (1997), Reviving Brand Loyalty: A Reconceptualization

within the Framework of Consumer-Brand Relationships,International Journal of

Research in Marketing, 14, 451-472.

Fournier, Susan (1998), Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in

consumer research,Journal of Consumer Research, 24(March), 343-373.

Friedman, Stewart D. and Jeffrey H. Greenhaus (2000), Work and FamilyAllies or

Enemies? Cambridge: Oxford University Press.

Garbarino, Ellen and Mark S. Johnson (1999), The Different Roles of Satisfaction, Trust,

and Commitment in Customer Relationships,Journal of Marketing, 63 (April),

70-87.

Garland, Ron (2004), Share of Wallets Role in Customer Profitability,Journal of

Financial Services Marketing, 8 (3), 259-268.

Glaser, Barney and Anselm Strauss (1967), The Discovery of Grounded Theory, Chicago:

Aldine Publishing Company.

Holt, Douglas B. (2003), What Becomes an Icon Most?Harvard Business Review,

March, 43-49.


26/38

Working Paper 25

Holt, Douglas B. (2004),How Brands Become Icons: The Principles of Cultural

Branding, Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press.

Huneke, Mary E. (2005), The face of the un-consumer: An empirical examination of the

practice of voluntary simplicity in the United States, Psychology & Marketing

22(July), 527-551

Jones, Thomas O. and W. Earl Sasser Jr. (1995), Why satisfied Customers Defect,

Harvard Business Review, 73(6), 88-99.

Keiningham, Timothy L., Tiffany Perkins-Munn, and Heather Evans (2003), The Impact

of Customer Satisfaction on Share of Wallet in a Business-to-Business

Environment,Journal of Service Research, 6 (1), 37-50.

Keiningham, Timothy L., Tiffany Perkins-Munn, Lerzan Aksoy, and Demitry Estrin

(2005), Does Customer Satisfaction Lead to Profitability? The Mediating Role of

Share of Wallet,Managing Service Quality, 15 (2), 172-181.

Kumar V. and Werner. J. Reinartz (2006), Customer Relationship Management : A

Database Approach (1st edition), New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Lam, Regan, and Suzan Burton (2006), SME Banking Loyalty (and Disloyalty): A

Qualitative Study in Hong Kong,International Journal of Banking Marketing, 24

(1), 37-52.

Malthouse, E.C. and Blattberg, R.C. (2005). Can we predict customer lifetime value?

Journal of Interactive Marketing, 19(1):2-16.

McAlexander, James H., Stephen K. Kim and Scott D. Roberts (2003), Loyalty: The

Influences of Satisfaction and Brand Community Integration,Journal of

Marketing Theory and Practice, 11 (Fall), 1-10.


27/38

Working Paper 26

McCracken, Grant (1988), The Long Interview, Newbury Park: Sage.

Miles, Matthew B. and A. M. Huberman (1994), Qualitative data analysis: an expanded

sourcebook, 2nd ed., Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Mittal, Vikas and Wagner A. Kamakura (2001), Satisfaction, Repurchase Intent and

Repurchase Behavior: Investigating the Moderating Effect of Customer

Characteristics,Journal of Marketing Research, 38 (February), 131-142.

Mittal, Vikas, Pankaj Kumar and Michael Tsiros (1999), Attribute-Level Performance,

Satisfaction and Behavioral Intentions Over Time: A Consumption-System

Approach,Journal of Marketing, 63 (April), 88-101.

Moore, Elizabeth S., William L. Wilkie and Richard J. Lutz (2002), Passing the Torch:

Intergenerational Influences as a Source of Brand Equity,Journal of Marketing,

65 (April), 17-37.

Moisio, Risto and Mariam Beruchashvili (n.d.), We Just Gripen GripeThats All We

Do!: Performing Griping Ritual in the Weight Watchers Brand Community,

under revision forJournal of Consumer Research.

Nunes, Joseph C. and Xavier Drze (2006), Your Loyalty Program is Betraying You,

Harvard Business Review, 84 (4), 124-131.

Oliver, Richard L. (1999), Whence Consumer Loyalty?Journal of Marketing, 63

(Special Issue), 33-44.

Peppers, Don and Martha Rogers (2006). Return on Customer: A new metric of value

creation - Return on investment by itself is not good enough.Journal of Direct,

Data and Digital Marketing Practice, 7(April-June), 318-332.
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=12&did=1061967331&SrchMode=1&sid=1&Fmt=2&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1171319139&clientId=43922http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=12&did=1061967331&SrchMode=1&sid=1&Fmt=2&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1171319139&clientId=43922http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=12&did=1061967331&SrchMode=1&sid=1&Fmt=2&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1171319139&clientId=43922http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=12&did=1061967331&SrchMode=1&sid=1&Fmt=2&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1171319139&clientId=43922


28/38

Working Paper 27

Perkins-Munn, Tiffany, Lerzan Aksoy, Timothy L. Keiningham, and Demitry Estrin

(2005), Actual Purchase as a Proxy for Share of Wallet,Journal of Service

Research, 7 (3), 245-256.

Ponsonby-McCabe, Sharon and Emily Boyle (2006), Understanding brands as

experiential spaces: axiological implications for marketing strategists, Journal of

Strategic Marketing 14 (June), 175189.

Price, Linda L. and Eric J. Arnould (1998), Conducting the Choir: Representing

Multimethod Consumer Research, inRepresenting Consumers, ed. Barbara B.

Stern, London: Routledge, 339-364.

Price, Linda L. and Eric J. Arnould (1999), Commercial Friendships: Service Provider-

Client Relationships in Context,Journal of Marketing, 63 (October), 38-56.

Rust, Roland T., Valarie A. Zeithaml and Katherine N. Lemon (2000),Driving customer

equity: how lifetime customer value is reshaping corporate strategy, New York:

Free Press.

Sandholtz, Kurt, Brooklyn Derr, Kathy Buckner and Dawn Carlson (2002), Beyond

Juggling: Rebalancing Your Busy Life, San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Seiders, Kathleen, Glenn B. Voss, Dhruv Grewal, and Andrea L. Godfrey (2005), Do

Satisfied Customers Buy More? Examining Moderating Influences in a Retailing

Context,Journal of Marketing, 69 (October), 26-43.

Spiggle, Susan (1994), Analysis and Interpretation of Qualitative Data in Consumer

Research,Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (December), 491-503.


29/38

Working Paper 28

Thompson, Craig J. (1997), Interpreting Consumers: A Hermeneutical Framework for

Deriving Marketing Insights form the Texts of Consumers Consumption Stories,

Journal of Marketing Research, 34 (November), 438-455.

Thompson, Craig J. (2005), Consumer Risk Perceptions in a Community of Reflexive

Doubt,Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (September), 235-249.

Thompson, Craig J. and Elizabeth C. Hirschman (1995), Understanding the socialized

body: A poststructuralist analysis of consumers' self-conceptions, body images, and

self-care practices,Journal of Consumer Research, 22 (September), 139-154.

Venkatesan, R., V. Kumar, and T. Bohling (2005), Selecting Valuable Customers Using a

Customer Lifetime Value Framework, Working Paper 05-121, Cambridge, MA:

Marketing Science Institute.


30/38

Working Paper 29

Table Brands and Share of Heart Strategies

Consumer

strategies

Examples Organizational

strategies

Accommodating:Set aside loyalty to

self in favor ofloyalty to some

other constituency

You know I probably wouldnt spend much time in the Gap or Old Navy,

which I hate except that they have cheap cotton shirts for my kids. (Susan,

36, married, 2 daughters)

Probably the biggest difference in my purchasing since our marriage is in

the grocery department. Now I have to buy the types of food that she likes

to eat. Well, Heather wants me to eat healthier so instead of eating Lucky

Charms or Toaster Strudels for Breakfast, we eat Cheerios or wheat toast.

For lunch, instead of eating at Runza or Burger King, we eat Subway or a

garden fresh salad, and for dinner, we eat chicken or pasta instead of pizza

or cheeseburgers ( male, 26-30, Dentist, married, 1 child)

Oh yes. Like, my children love drinking Milo [note: its a brand of

chocolate drink that is very popular in Southeast Asia]. I dont drink itmuch, but I buy it anyway because of them (female, teacher, married, 1

son).

Brands can builddifferent meanings in

their product offer soas to make

accommodating

easier for consumers.

Brandcommunication may

underplayconsumers loyalty tothemselves and

highlight the joy in

sacrificing forothers.

Brand positioningmay be built around

the consumerssignificant loyalty

(instead of the central

consumer.

Avoidance: avoid

domains and

situations the lead

to loyalty conflicts

How they facilitate the relationship? Well, the [GM] mini van keeps the

wife happy, happy wife, happy life. So uh, you have the basic necessity,such as the mini van helps out the wife and kids (Male, married, 2 kids).

Brands mayemphasize that they

are the solution to

loyalty conflicts

experienced by


31/38

Working Paper 30

customers

Cyclic alteration:toggle among

various loyalties

sequentially

Some nights I have to miss my boys sporting events and I hate that, so I find

myself taking them to Toys R Us or McDonalds to make up for it. Then if

the boys get something you have to get the girls something to, so it is the

never ending cycle. (female, 36-40, Retail Manager married, 4 children).

Hmmwell, this isnt on a daily basis, but I go golfing with him even

though I hate it because I want to spend time with him. And he goes tomovies that I like and he hates (female, 51-55 College Instructor, married, 2

children)

Different variants ofthe same

product/service may

be made available

Brands may offeroptions to co-create

product

Dominating/

Selection:Let loyalty to one

or more

constituency

dominate brand

choices

Having my cell phone available to me at work allows me to stay in contact

with my sons and often allows me the ability to complete tasks as needed.

When offered a better program or upgrade I stay with what works for me.

(Tonya, 51-55, divorced, 3 sons aged 20-26)

A close friend works at Bakers. I only purchase flowers from Bakers floral

department. My personal friend gives me advice and special attention. I buy

and order flowers only through my friend at Bakers and I recommend her

product to others (male, 21-26, married).

I would say that I purchase Clorox because I know that is what my daycare

provider uses to keep her house clean. So I purchase those to stay loyal toher and make sure that I am cleaning my house the same way. Um, I

bought a Hoover vacuum cleaner my because my parents have a Hoover

vacuum cleaner I liked their vacuum cleaner. I but Kate Spade purses

(giggles) because my sister buys Kate Spade purses. (female, married,

professional).

The brands maymotivate /direct/guide

consumers to choose

a specific loyalty

over other loyalties

The brands mayprovide loyalty

building as a reason

to consume that

brand

Brands may be

positioned withrespect to certain

specific loyalties of

consumers (e.g.

restaurants can be

positioned around

children)

FacilitationUsing Commercial

In some bizarre way in the fast food industry I would feel somewhat loyal.

I say in a bizarre way in that if I am with my daughter, I am loyal to


32/38

Working Paper 31

Partners to

Reinforce

Interpersonal

Commitments

McDonalds However, if she wasnt with me, then I wouldnt go toMcDonalds. I would go to Runza, DaVincis, or something else. We alsolike Culvers (male, 31-35, Wellness Coordinator, Married, 1 child)

When one of my daughters visits, I always buy her Sweetarts because I

know she loves them. The other one likes Amarige perfume by Givenchy. I

purchase the products because I want to show that I remember what they

like and that I love them (female, College Instructor, 51-55, married, 2children).

I feel loyal to La-z-boy. I know this brand is a preference of his and that it

will be utilized resulting in a positive response (female, mid 50s, Therapist,

married, 2 children)

Multi-tasking:move back and

forth between

loyalty demands

Because of the different technologies that are available today it makes it alittle easier to multi-task and do the necessary things you need to do and not

have to go to a particular place to do the job. So being able to do the job

from home helps me and you know that what the cell phone and the dial in

lab come in to play. I would tell you my dell PDA is a life saver and you

carry it with you wherever you go and I learned a long long time ago that

keeping one calendar for everything, work, church, home, is so important

because if you have multiple calendars things get lost and fall through thecracks and my Dell is my life. And the people that are close to me and

around me know that my Dell is my life and its not just my work life itsmy everything. (Rachel, 41-45, Married, 2 daughters)

Theres a group of ladies that come in once a month, there are four or five

of them Lucys party, they say. They come in and tell their husbands that

these meals take them four hours to do and they quickly finish their dinners,

spending an hour and a half there, leave their dinners in the refrigerators,

and then take off and have drinks and dinner, and then call their husbands


33/38

Working Paper 32

on the way out to let them know that theyre on their way home, so theytrick them into having this free time, their little treat time (home meal

assembly service owner).

Outsourcing: use

economic or social

capital to service

various competing

loyalties

And I have this son who really needs help with schoolwork and I am aware

that in order to meet all these competing demands, I am letting his

schoolwork suffer. So we have Sylvan (a for profit educational facility).

I cannot be there to give the additional tutoring my son needs but here are

some competent professionals who can. So Sylvan is someone I would lookat as playing a significant role in helping me manage these competing

demands. (Suzie, 38, married, 2 children).

Provide reasons whyconsumers could

outsourceconsumption

decision. Highlight the

joy/satisfaction

derived from

outsourcing

Procrastination:delay time to

service focal

loyalty until a later

point

T: Are there products, services, or brands to help with this situation?

S: None that I have thought of

Segmentation:

isolate domains for

satisfying various

loyalties

Those two brands [Nike and Adidas], such as sporting goods products, help

me say these things are more for recreation which I do on my own personal

time, or with my family, or that just represent me personally. Brand-wise,

Nike and Adidas, things that represent sporting and leisure versus the dress

clothes that represents work help in maintaining the balance (male, 31-35,Wellness Coordinator).

Selection Rule:Employ a higher

order heuristic for

resolving

conflicting

loyalties

but it is usually some kind of ice cream productit is always a WeightWatchers ice cream that he wouldnt feel terribly guilty snacking on. Thatwould be one thing. (female, married professional).

Well, we feel loyalty toward local business, I guess that is another reason I

picked Fredericks coffee because its locally owned because, I think theywere the first ones introduced to the neighborhood. We show loyalty to


34/38

Working Paper 33

local places because they were the first to come andthey are people wholive here and have a business. (female, 45-50, Territory Manager married, 2

children)

I continue to purchase and wear Nebraska clothes almost every day. (Male,

56-60, International sales, married, 2 children)

I always get a certain type of formula Nestle Good Start. It isnt thecheapest, but it is the best for my baby. (female, 31-35, Married, children)

I go to the Christian bookstore quite often. I use their services in ordering

things for the Sunday school class I teach and I also read a lot. So, I am

constantly buying Christian novels and study books. (female, married, 1

child)


35/38

Working Paper 34

Sharing/

Integration:service multiple

loyalties

simultaneously

The Crockpotyou can fix it in five minutes in the morning, it smells good

all day. You come home in the night and it is ready to go, so the kids are

happy since they get home cooked meals and the family is happy, it is easy.

Turbo cooker, one of my sons insisted that we buy a Turbo cooker. He saw

it on TV. It really turned out to be a neat thing since the whole family gets

involved in the food preparation, (Suzie, 38, married, 2 children)

Pixar Animation is one brand that we trust to deliver movies that will beentertaining to my husband and me but also be acceptable for our kids.

Similarly, I trustNickelodeon to provide acceptable TV

programmingthese stations also help me to provide entertainment forother peoples kids without worries. (Suzie, 38, married, 2 children)Well, we, uhm, get Road Runner cable modem. We get that because itsimportant to our kidsthey can do activities online that they really like. If I

didnt have kids and if I didnt have a relationship with them in which I

agree that its an activity that is important to them that is okay with me, then

I wouldnt have Road Runner. 28 Joyce We probably eat out more. Just within this week we at out already twice,

Thursday and Friday, because we were just too tired to cook food. We went

to the local Thai Garden and Fireworks. And we go there because all of us

enjoy the food there and so it kind of pleases everybody. (Jorja, 46, married,

one child)

I: I attempt to make something they both like so I do not have to make two

different meals.R: How do you feel when faced with this situation?

I: I am pleased when I can help them both out at once.

R: Are there products or services that can help you negotiate this situation?

I: Yes.

R: Can you give me a couple examples?

I: Hamburger Helper and Kraft Macaroni are always a good solution in my

The product offermay contain a

number of attributes

so that it can appeal

to multiple

constituencies

simultaneously.

The product/servicemay be made

available as a

stripped downversion with multiple

add-ons available.

Product/service mayprovide ample

opportunities for

personalization.


36/38

Working Paper 35

house. (female, 26-30, senior clerical job)


37/38

Working Paper 36

Simplifying:focus on one

loyalty or set of

loyalties at a time

I use a Palm Pilot to help me manage my time. I also rely a lot on my

computer and my co-workers to make my work week go as smooth as

possibleBoth my palm pilot and computer are Dell, and neither one haslet me down to this date. Other than making a body double to help juggle

both my work and my family, I pretty much have to negotiate certain

problems. I do rely a lot on my palm pilot and my computer like I said

earlier. I also rely a lot on my cell phone to keep my connected (Travis, 1

child, stay at home wife)

Brands can highlightthe value of

simplification as a

solution to

conflicting loyalties


38/38

Figure

A Share of Heart View of Brands Value in Everyday Life

emplo er

Consumer

Brand(cyclic alteration,

outsourcing /partnering,sharing/integration,

relationship stabilizer)

child

spouse

Brand(avoidance,

accommodation,

mediation)

Brand(facilitation;

therapy;authority)

Groupmember

Brand(domination,

segmentation,selection rule,

simplifying)

Life projects& goals

Brand(fetish)

spouse

child

friend

Ancestors

Arcadia

collin lachaud_price_heart and brand strategy

Documents