Abstract

This paper uses the perspective of interpersonal relationship theory to critically examine, reposition,
and extend the notion of brand loyalty. Depth interviews among eight coffee-consuming adults who
qualified as brand loyal by traditional criteria provide the data. The result is a deeper appreciation of
the character of loyal consumer-brand relations and a sharper awareness of the limitations to
understanding that current theoretical frameworks impose. Specifically, the authors suggest that: (1)
not all loyal brand relationships are alike, in strength or in character; (2) many brand relationships
not identified as 'loyal' according to dominant theoretical conceptions are especially meaningful
from the consumer's point of view; and (3) current approaches to classification accept some brand
relationships that, upon close scrutiny, do not possess assumed characteristics of 'loyalty' or
'strength' at all. Ideas stemming from a reframing of loyalty as one component in a multifaceted
construct of relationship strength are put forth, encouraging a move from the metaphor of 'loyalty'
to the broader notion of 'relationships' that encompasses it. © 1997 Elsevier Science B.V.

1. Introduction

After a long hiatus on brand-building activities, marketers have once again placed the
development of consumer brand loyalties at the heart of their business plans (Aaker, 1996; Morris,
1996). The need to understand and leverage consumer-brand bonds has become especially critical in
a marketplace characterized by increasing unpredictability, diminishing product differentiation, and
heightened competitive pressures (Shocker et al., 1994). As marketing is redefined in relationship
terms (Blattberg and Deighton, 1991; Reichheld and Sasser, 1990; Webster, 1992), the need for
effective management of consumer brand loyalties becomes paramount once again.

It is interesting to juxtapose the centrality of brand loyalty in marketing practice against

research activity in the academic discipline. While the construct is over seventy years old (Copeland,
1923), few would disagree that scientific progress in understanding, measuring, and leveraging
brand loyalty assets has been lacking. Published research on brand loyalty has slowed to a virtual
trickle over the past ten years. Cries for relevant theoretical perspectives that can breathe new life
into brand loyalty research have been raised (see, for example, Lehmann and Russo, 1996; Lutz,
1987; Sherry, 1987; the current special issue of the International Journal of Research in Marketing).
The present research responds to this need by providing an account of brand loyalty that is (a)
grounded in the realities of consumer experience, and (b) informed by interpersonal relationship
scholarship that has had little prior influence on empirical or theoretical work in the loyalty field. This
research addresses the basic question of why and in what sense consumer brand loyalties exist, and
in so doing, suggests an alternate, expanded conceptualization of the loyalty notion within the
framework of consumer-brand relationality. The framework offers actionable implications for the
leverage of consumer-brand bonds in the marketplace in addition to power in stimulating innovative
agendas in the brand loyalty research domain.

2. Existing research on brand loyalty

Brand loyalty research has undergone much evolution, with three primary philosophical tensions
organizing the field over time. The first tension split researchers according to their assumptions
regarding the stochastic versus purposive nature of repeat purchase processes. Those interested in
modeling aggregate repeat purchase patterns formed one camp (cf. Ehrenberg, 1988), while a
second group sought theoretical explanations of loyalty as a biased expression of individual
preference (cf. Jacoby and Chestnut, 1978). A second dividing line concerned the best way to
operationalize the brand loyalty concept. Behaviorist definitions valued for their measurement
objectivity were built on proportions or sequences of purchase assumed to reveal underlying brand
preference (e.g., Cunningham, 1966; Kahn et al., 1986). As these measures were criticized for their
lack of explanatory power (Jacoby and Chestnut, 1978), a group recommending attitudinal or hybrid
attitudinal/ behavioral construct definitions emerged (cf. Day, 1969). A third tension separated
researchers according to their primary theoretical and philosophical research orientations.
Psychological and anthropological/ sociological camps formed, with the latter interested in the
meanings and hedonic/emotive aspects of brand loyalty, and the former concerned with the
cognitive processes supporting the development of brand attitude strength. This movement toward
questions of theory, goals of explanation versus prediction, and diagnostic power over simple
description reflects a mounting concern for a conceptual framework that can guide not only brand
loyalty research, but managerial action as well (Dick and Basu, 1994).

Despite these advances, our understanding of the phenomenon of brand loyalty remains lacking.
While there is general agreement that brand loyalty refers to a "biased behavioral response
expressed over time by some decision-making unit with respect to one or more alternative brands
out of a set of such brands" (Jacoby and Chestnut, 1978, p. 80), nuances regarding the basic concept
of loyalty have not been explicitly articulated nor truly appreciated. Variations of form and shades of
meaning with likely significance to researchers and practitioners have been obscured in definitions
that are so general as to be non-diagnostic. While this is particularly apparent in revealed preference
measures that fail to distinguish thoughtless habits from felt loyalties, random purchases from
purposive repertoires, and flagrant disloyalties from situationally-driven brand use patterns, even
attitudinal and hybrid measures are lacking. Abstract concepts such as liking or preference are
assumed sufficient; no attempt is made to dimensionalize the types or sources of affect that may
comprise and distinguish loyalty responses. Though claiming to reveal the 'soft side' of the loyalty
phenomenon, attitudinal measures seem somehow 'flat': it is hard to argue that a simple liking score
captures the full emotional character implied by the notion of 'loyalty' in the English language.
Amplifying these conceptual deficiencies is a tendency to overlook the contextual character of brand
loyalty qualified in the basic definition. By ignoring the brand set within which loyalty is expressed,
or acknowledging this simply through the availability or unavailability of competing brand
alternatives, researchers dismiss the importance of the dynamic interplay among brands within a
person's usage portfolio. The uninspired, non-diagnostic, and sometimes conflicting
operationalizations of the construct that result are at least partially to blame for the reactions of
those who debate either the very existence of brand loyalty in the consumer marketplace or its
theoretical significance in the marketing field.

Our understanding of the processes governing brand loyalty also suffers significant shortcomings.
Though Jacoby and Chestnut (1978) clearly identify brand loyalty as "a function of psychological
(decision-making, evaluative) processes exhibited over time", little insight into the process condition
has been obtained. Explanations of loyalty formation have been drawn primarily from cognitive
psychology, with theories of attitude formation guiding most of the work (Dick and Basu, 1994). Our
understanding of the temporal aspects of brand loyalty have been largely afforded in studies of
nostalgia and the intergenerational transfer of brand preferences (O1- sen, 1993, 1995), or in
descriptive inquiries that assess the durability of brand bonds over time (Guest, 1964). In short, our
theories and investigations have not fully appreciated the dynamic quality of the brand loyalty
phenomenon (Sherry, 1987). Prevalent one-shot measures essentially treat brand loyalty as static in
nature. Behavioral measures, while adopting a wider window on construct definition that
acknowledges loyalty in temporal perspective, still fail to capture the dynamic, evolutionary
character of the phenomenon itself. Much remains to be learned about the temporal processes
governing brand loyalty development and the changes in brand loyalties that occur over time.
Several factors have perhaps contributed to our lack of advancement on these fronts. First, the
theoretical foundations brought to bear on questions of brand loyalty have been limited. As
mentioned above, orientations have been overwhelmingly cognitive, with the attitude literature
providing most of the fodder. While some contemporary accounts have tried to explain loyalty
patterns by drawing upon theories of symbolic interactionism (Solomon, 1986, 1995), cultural
anthropology (McCracken, 1993; Schouten and McAlexander, 1995), and consumer socialization
(Muniz and O'Guinn, 1995; Olsen, 1993, 1995), these investigations are relatively rare. The lack of
attention to interpersonal relationship theories is especially noteworthy given obvious conceptual
connections to the notion of 'loyalty' per se. Interestingly, the practitioner world escapes this
criticism. Qualitative researchers, especially those who work for advertising agencies and consulting
firms, commonly organize their research under a relationship umbrella (Blackston, 1992; Schlueter,
1992). Practitioners are not hesitant to apply relationshiprelevant concepts such as bonding (Cross
and Smith, 1995), advocacy (Griffin, 1995), and intimacy (Vavra, 1992). Explicit attention to and
development of the relationship-theoretic underpinnings of these metaphorical applications remain
limited, however, appearing only in a few selective academic writings dedicated to the task (see, for
example, Fournier, 1994 for general applications of relationship theory in the brand domain and
Hess, 1995, for adaptation of interpersonal trust and commitment theories to the loyalty domain).

The tendency to adopt experimental and modeling approaches to the loyalty problem has also
restricted the nature of insights obtained (Sherry, 1987). These methods, while valuable for their
predictive capacities, obscure the deep meanings that can enrich construct definitions and
theoretical frameworks. Recent qualitative works on consumer-brand interaction (McCracken, 1993;
Olsen, 1995; Schouten and McAlexander, 1995) reveal rich phenomenological insights into the
nature and process of brand loyalty unavailable through dominant approaches. These studies add
consumer relevance to our interpretations of brand loyalty phenomena by highlighting the personal
significance consumers invest in the brands to which they pledge their loyalties. They open the mind
to dynamic versus static aspects of the loyalty construct, contributing to the actionability of research
findings. Moreover, they sensitize the researcher to the importance of context in understanding the
nature of loyalty phenomena. Unfortunately, primary insights from these studies have not been
explicitly applied to the advancement of brand loyalty theory per se. Second, these meaning-based
approaches tend to be decidedly socio-cultural in character. Studies that combine the sociological
and the psychological (Sherry, 1995) may provide a level of insight into brand loyalty process and
structure not yet revealed.

Lastly, we have perhaps unknowingly restricted our learning by the very concept of brand loyalty we
assume to be operative in the consumer behavior domain. Three main assumptions implicitly guide
our investigations. At best, these assumptions impede our understanding of brand loyalty
phenomena; at worst, they preclude scientific advancement through the misleading nature of the
construct they imply. The first assumption is revealed in brand loyalty measures that tend to focus
on share of purchase requirements as a central defining characteristic. These measures implicitly
presume that there is 'one unit of attachment' to be divided among all brands in the usage portfolio,
and that smaller shares of loyalty are somehow less valid from the consumer's point of view. The
second but related assumption is that loyalty possesses a 'black and white' quality. Consumers are
classified as loyal or disloyal based upon some arbitrary cutoff in purchase-share qualifications. This
tendency toward dichotomy not only precludes attention to loyalty levels and types, but also blinds
the researcher to the value that may exist in relationships classified as disloyal. Finally, our
definitions assume a culturally-biased definition of loyalty that has not been validated in the
consumer behavior domain. Our measures and commentaries imply loyalty as fidelity and
exclusivity: they assume the consumer's faithful enactment of a promise or pledge to consistently
purchase only one brand over time (Ehrenberg, 1988). We assume loyalty is the consequence of a
decided choice process among competing brands -- an overt response of commitment driven by the
consumer acting as rational being in the optimization of choice alternatives. In its focus on fidelity
and commitment, our concept of brand loyalty parallels the cultural ideal of the monogamous
marital relationship. As was true with applications of personality trait theories in the consumer
behavior realm (Kassarjian, 1971), these assumptions have been levied without concern for the
uniqueness of the consumer setting. Whether the notion of loyalty as exclusive committed
partnership is relevant in a world of product proliferation, price wars, and hedonic consumption
remains questionable at best. We have not yet articulated a definition of loyalty that is valid at the
level of today's consumer experience.

3. Statement of study purpose

The present research is discovery-oriented in nature (Wells, 1993). It proceeds on the critical
observation that we have perhaps prematurely circumscribed the brand loyalty construct and our
understanding of it, thereby precluding the accumulation of knowledge into a theory of brand
loyalty that is valid at the level of lived experience. The research is intended to address the fact that
conceptual deficiencies restrict managerial application of brand loyalty knowledge -- a significant
shortcoming for a theoretical domain with such clear practical implications as this.

The present research provides a grounded account of brand loyalty. It asks the fundamental
questions of why and in what sense consumer brand loyalties exist. The overall objective is to
construct an understanding of brand loyalty that is sensitive not only to an active (Bourdieu, 1984),
multifaceted (Kihlstrom and Cantor, 1984), and goal-oriented (Huffman et al., 1996) consumer, but
to the context of other brand connections forged within the product category as well. In addressing
these questions, a relationship perspective is adopted. This recognizes not only the obvious
relevance of relationship concepts to the loyalty domain, but also the framework's explicit
consideration of the nuances of meaning, context, and temporality (Hinde, 1995) that remain
underappreciated in existing loyalty accounts. This investigation challenges implicit assumptions
regarding the nature and significance of brand loyalty in today's culture, and suggests ways of
measuring the construct that are more valid and actionable from the point-of-view of contemporary
consumer experience.

4. Research design and informant selection

The present study explores in detail the loyal brand relationships of eight coffee-consuming adults.
The coffee category was purposively selected for the range of brand alternatives it contains, a
condition that maximized the breadth of loyalty experiences that could be uncovered for analysis.
Additionally, since coffee has been traditionally characterized as a product category with little
consumer commitment to brands, the category provides a rigorous challenge for the development
of insight into the loyalty phenomenon. Finally, the product class enjoys a rich empirical research
history, allowing for comparison of findings and accumulation of insights toward the development of
sound brand loyalty theory (Lehmann and Russo, 1996). While attention to a singleproduct category
provides a common ground on which the loyalty phenomenon can be examined, it does by definition
limit the generalizability of findings obtained. The discovery-oriented goals of the present study put
depth of insight above these generalizability

concerns.

Given our objective of understanding the nature and significance of loyal brand relationships, only
informants with identified brand loyalties were recruited for study. Brand loyalty was
operationalized using a commonly-accepted attitude-plus-behavior measure: (1) informants
described themselves as 'being concerned about which particular brands they used'; (2) they
identified one coffee brand that they used more than others as per an allocation-ofpurchases
measure; and (3) they stated a strong liking/preference for one brand over others in the repertoire.
Informants were purposively selected to span a range of coffee-related behaviors (i.e., category use
duration, consumption frequency) and socio- demographics (see Table 1). This strategy was intended
to maximize information regarding brand loyalty while allowing for systematic differences in
relationship-related behaviors. The informant pool was set at eight in light of accepted disciplinary
guidelines for uncovering insight through depth interviewing techniques (McCracken, 1988).

5. The methodology

Informant-generated images were used to stimulate and probe people's stories of the brands they
use (Zaltman and Higie, 1993). Ten days prior to the interview, informants were asked to collect a set
of six or more images that 'described how they feel about coffee,' and another three to four images
that 'captured their feelings' toward the pre-identified loyal brand. The recruiter suggested sources
for the image material (e.g., magazines, personal photos, product labels, personal tokens) and
stressed that images should be selected to allow the researchers to understand what coffee in
general and the loyal brand specifically meant to the informant. The interviews were structured into
three parts. The first segment was organized around the assembled coffee category images. Image
amplification (i.e., 'What story does it tell? Why did you bring it here today?'), identification of
central images (i.e., 'Which image best captures how you feel about coffee? Why that?'), and
laddering on elicited picture meanings (e.g., 'You say this picture reflects how coffee makes you feel
awake. Why is being awake important to you?') were pursued in an effort to elicit the full context of
informants' category meanings. The second part of the interview was designed to yield a temporal
understanding of the informant's category usage. Here, notable changes in coffee attitudes and
behaviors were identified, and triggers prompting those changes over time were specified. The final
interview segment, commanding roughly half the interview time, was devoted to an explication of
the informants' brand relationships, most notably that with the pre-identified loyal brand. Once
again, the images chosen to represent the loyal brand were probed, and temporal specifics of brand
relationship evolution examined. Informants compared and contrasted their various brand
relationships using card sorts, repertory grid comparisons, and visual mapping exercises dedicated to
an explication of the differences in meanings between brands. Personality themes salient to the
individual were explored as revealed throughout the course of the discussion. Interviews lasted from
2 to 3.5 hours and were conducted separately by the authors. To compensate for the preparation
and interviewing demands of the task, informants received $40-$60 for their participation. Audio
tapes were transcribed verbatim and served as the data base.

6. Analytic approach

The analysis sought identification of meaningful patterns in the data that would illuminate our
understanding of the brand loyalty phenomenon. To inform these interpretations, the authors
immersed themselves in two streams of literature (McCracken, 1988). Both analysts were very
knowledgeable of prior work on interpersonal relationships, especially as interpreted by Fournier
(1994). This includes the study of relationship forms (e.g., Hayes, 1988 on friendship; Kelley et al.,
1983 on close partnerships), relationship development and change over time (cf. Levinger, 1983),
relationship strength factors (Berscheid et al., 1989) and the affective (e.g., love, attachment),
behavioral (e.g., interdependence, commitment) and cognitive (e.g., intimacy) dimensions along
which relationships vary (Wish et al., 1976; Wright, 1974). A second literature on life themes and life
projects (Csikszentmihalyi and Beattie, 1979; Huffman et al., 1996) provided a framework within
which to understand the personal meanings on which brand relationships were grounded (Hinde,
1981). These literature bases stimulated concepts the authors could apply in summarizing their
interpretations of the data, the relationship descriptors representing informed attempts to decipher
the different meanings and experiences implied by informants' brand stories within the perspective
of interpersonal relationship theory. Descriptive labels were not intended as morphological
representations of reality; constructs were chosen from those available in the relationship literature
for the analogical powers they were able to bring to bear in describing the experience of consumers'
brand relationships. All analyses were exploratory in character, the goal one of advancing, not
validating, early-stage research ideas. The data were analyzed by both authors. First, each author
independently studied an informant's transcripts, interpreting the holistic meanings contained in the
brand stories reported therein and capturing these insights in written memo form. Central to this
holistic analysis was the development of descriptive and interpretive informant profiles (Mick and
Buhl, 1992; Thompson et al., 1990; Thompson et al., 1994). These within-person analyses tell the
story of an informant's interactions with his/her loyal brand within the context of: (1) significant
personological/sociological themes and details; (2) coffee category meanings and interactions; and
(3) the temporal evolution of brand and category attitudes and behaviors over time. Specific
attempts to draw connections between the informants' socio-personological themes and their brand
stories were made (Mick and Buhl, 1992). The authors then jointly negotiated their individual
interpretations toward a shared understanding of informants' relationships with their brands.
Central themes in these negotiated summary profiles were organized through evocative symbolic
metaphors capturing the key personal meanings each participant ascribed to their brand
experiences (Thompson et al., 1994). This process was conducted first for informants' loyal brands,
and then for other brands used in the category. While the authors acknowledge the interviewer's
role in drawing interpretations from the data, the credibility of conclusions drawn was supported by
multiple sources of information (e.g., pictures, screening surveys, interview transcripts) and the
triangulation of that information across interviewers (Erlandson et al., 1993). The analysis generated
three central insights into brand loyalty as defined according to traditional attitude-plus-behavior
conceptions: (1) not all brand loyal relationships are alike, in strength or in character; (2) some brand
relationships not pre-identified as loyal using dominant theoretical conceptions are especially
meaningful from the informant's point of view; and (3) current approaches to loyalty accept some
brand relationships that, upon close scrutiny, do not possess assumed characteristics of commitment
or relationship strength at all. Case stories best illustrating these themes are revealed and discussed
below.

7. Theme I: The diverse nature of brand loyal relationships

7.1. Wendy, the case of marital commitment

Of the eight informants interviewed, Wendy's Dunkin' Donuts brand relationship, with its elements
of exclusivity and enduring commitment, seems most representative of the 'loyalty standard' implied
in the marketing literature. Wendy has been loyal to Dunkin' Donuts since she first started drinking
coffee twenty years ago, and the brand is now inextricably entwined in her daily behavioral regimen.
Each and every morning at 7:00, Wendy faces the same decision: whether to get in the car and drive
to the nearby Dunkin' Donuts store, or to make Dunkin' Donuts coffee from the branded beans she
keeps at home. Wendy often grabs a second cup on her drive to work, drinking only half so she can
enjoy the other half at her desk before the workday begins in earnest and 'everybody and their
brother starts asking her for things'. Sometimes Wendy slips out during the afternoons and walks to
the nearby Dunkin' Donuts shop to purchase a cup of 'iced, only iced' coffee. Dunkin' Donuts
accompanies Wendy on weekends as well, a characteristic cup always at hand while she does
household chores and grocery shopping. "It is a part of my life, no question about that. It's a regular
habit", she explains.

Wendy's long-term preference for the Dunkin' Donuts brand was voiced several times during her
interview. She has 'always drunk Dunkin' Donuts' coffee' ("Have I ever not bought Dunkin Donuts?
Probably not"). Wendy expresses no desire to switch brands or to monitor the environment for
better or more convenient alternatives. She openly claims brand fidelity. Her loyal-brand relationship
is perhaps best captured with the classic long-term marriage metaphor wherein Dunkin' Donuts is
seen as a 'decent,' 'trustworthy' and 'honest partner' (Levinger, 1983).

W: I am definitely committed to Dunkin' Donuts.

I: What does this commitment to Dunkin' Donuts

mean to you?

W: Well, it's almost like it's the ultimate brand. You know, like honesty, committed to each other,
that you wouldn't really go to another brand. It's a hex.

I: So, this commitment, is it like fidelity?

W: Yes. It is something you are tied to. You are bound to it, that you have no desire to go anywhere
else. I am committed to Dunkin' Donuts.

I: What if another coffee shop you liked moved next to Dunkin' Donuts?

W: I'd probably stick with Dunkin' Donuts cuz I'm committed to it. I'd feel bad for them. Here's this
new guy coming in and walking on their territory. They say there is nothing like your own bed, well,
there's nothing like your own cup of coffee... I won't go anywhere else because I really don't need to.
Dunkin' Donuts is good to me. I am good to it. I like the package I have got, why look anywhere else?

Like a steady marriage partner, Dunkin' Donuts appears in many aspects of Wendy's life. The brand
is an integral part of her social circle. Wendy has a 'whole clan of friends who are Dunkin' Donuts-
oriented', including one who calls at 6:30 each morning to say, "well, are you making it today or are
we going to the store", and a whole tribe of women that drink Dunkin' Donuts iced coffee "every day
at the Cape house we rent for the summer". Wendy admits her brand relationship has a darker side
of co-dependency: "I am probably addicted to it. It's something that I have always done. I've been
doing it for a long period of time. Dunkin' Donuts would be 10 on a 1 to 10 addiction scale". Wendy
even collects Dunkin' Donuts paraphernalia as tokens of her relationship. She brings to the interview
a branded travel mug, a set of ceramic mugs, and a calendar, complete with coupons, that she hangs
in her kitchen each year. "I think you can say this brand is a part of my life", she explains. The origin
of this deeply-committed relationship perhaps lies in a connection between Wendy's dominant
socio-personological life theme of control and the brand's interdependent presence in her life.
Wendy is a self-proclaimed 'creature of habit' who "demands order" around her ("I like nothing
better than to get up early on a Saturday and go through the house and have everything spic and
span by 8 a.m."). Wendy "compulsively" tries to control her environment and revels in her ability to
find a "system for doing everything", a talent that wins her accolades as an administrative assistant
at work. Wendy has a highly scripted morning routine, which she deviates from only with regret and
emotional difficulty.

W: Every morning I splash water on my face, I stick on shorts and a t-shirt, I drive to Dunkin donuts.
By that time the newspaper is delivered, I read my paper.., it's a 15 minute thing.., and then I start to
make my lunch and by that time my coffee is done...Then I'll make my bed, I'll take a shower, I'll iron
my clothes, I get ready to come to work. This morning I didn't do my routine because of the
interview. It was not easy .... On Saturdays I go to the store at 7:30 a.m. when no one is there... I go
to the cleaners at 9:00 a.m .... I eat out every Thursday night... On Tuesdays we meet at
downtown ....

When asked for the source of her desires for control and routine, Wendy notes:

1. W: I'm a very organized person so therefore once I do something, I mean I have a system of doing
it. I grew up in a family where there were large numbers of us and we were so disorganized. It's my
compulsive behavior to seek order...Everyone around me is really unorganized, and that drives me
absolutely crazy...It probably is because everybody else tries to control what I do... I could never get
married, never. It would drive me nuts to have someone tell me what to do or how to organize my
life.

The scripted ritual of her morning Dunkin' Donut's coffee run, the power revealed in her consistent
choice of the Dunkin' Donuts brand over other viable brand candidates, the control revealed in the
predictability of the product quality and store experience, and the calming sense of order this
imposes on her life collectively help to resolve Wendy's central tension between being in and out-of-
control.

W: You can sit there, you can drink it, you can relax with it. I come home, I drink the coffee, I look at
the newspaper, I make my lunch. It's a routine and I really enjoy it.

Wendy is the quintessential committed customer that brand managers most likely envision when
they describe a brand loyal user. Wendy openly professes her contract with the brand ("I am a very
brand loyal person"), states her intentions for relationship continuity ("I intend to stay with this
brand torever"), implies singularity in those behaviors ("I do not see any reason why I would use
anything else"), and even conjures up feelings of guilt in the event of violation of her fidelity pledge
("I would feel so guilty if I cheated"). Interestingly, though, Wendy does not directly express her love
for Dunkin' Donuts, an element generally assumed in strong relationships. As with some long-term
marriages, Wendy' s passion for the Dunkin' Donuts brand seems to have subsided into comfortable
affection. Nevertheless, her 'brand marriage' remains deeply rooted, committed, interdependent,
and involved.

7.2. Pamela, the case of falling in loue Pamela, a single mom in her early thirties, is "strongly
attached" to the Gevalia brand of coffee she has bought for the past five years. In contrast to Wendy
who lacked an expressed emotional element in her loyal brand relationship, Pamela's connection
with Gevalia is very affectively-laden, perhaps best compared to the notion of 'falling in love' (Aron
et al., 1995). She speaks of her coffee as "incredibly enjoyable", "great", and "wonderful"... "I wish I
could have gotten a picture of a smiley face to show my enjoyment...It's like the whipped cream on
the pie". Every aspect of the brand captures Pamela's praise. She particularly "loves the mail order
delivery" and "gets a kick" out of the "pampered feeling" she derives from the brand. Pamela's
feelings for the brand are so strong that she has adopted a missionary stance toward the brand,
recruiting others to the "Gevalia club" and "spreading the word" about its quality.

P: My friend Val recently asked me about the coffee I buy because I gave her a half pound of Gevalia
at one point and she brought it home and used it. She loved it too, just as much as I do. Gave some
of it to her mother. Her mother said it was the best coffee that she ever had, so now she uses it too.
As with Wendy, Pamela's brand partner is inextricably woven into many life spheres. Each weekday
morning, she drinks a large mug of Gevalia during her one and one-half hour commute to work. At
work, she relies on Gevalia as a relaxing treat complementing a ritualistic cigarette break. Gevalia is a
"required prop" enjoyed during many of her social interactions. It "finishes a meal or a Sunday family
dinner", "keeps her company when (she) is chatting on the phone", and demonstrates her respect
when served to guests. For Pamela, rarity makes the heart grow fonder. Pamela's everyday coffee
consumption has waned from ten cups to two on advice from a doctor, rendering an even greater
appreciation for her "scarce cups of coffee indulgence". Gevalia holds a special place in Pamela's
heart.

P: It is special. I love it. It's my Gevalia.

I: What's unique about it? What does it do for you that other brands don't?

P: Probably a combination of things. It's delivered. That's special. I also like the choices. I mean I love
to sit down and look at the catalog that they send and see all the kinds they have... To look at the
pretty different things. It all looks so special in the catalog. I just love it.

The strong bond Pamela has with the Gevalia brand is at least in part rooted in its personification of
'special qualities' that collectively build Pamela's self-worth and esteem. During the interview,
Pamela spoke several times of her need to 'treat' herself and reaffirm the self-respect she has gained
despite obstacles of poor health, weight problems, single-parent status, and financial constraints.

P: I think when you do something special for yourself like this it is good for you. I mean, you got to
like yourself, you got to love yourself, and you got to treat yourself well. If you don't make yourself
happy on occasion, you miss a lot. Quite frankly I think that we make ourselves happy, and if you
don't, you are going to be an awful person to be around.

Similar to personal relationships in which those 'in-love' enjoy increased self-efficacy and selfesteem
(Aron et al., 1995), the Gevalia brand reinforces Pamela's self-worth through its identification as a
'high quality, classy' coffee. Gevalia's mailorder- only distribution strategy contributes greatly to
these feelings of affordable self-indulgence: "They deliver my coffee to me every six weeks. They
automatically charge my AMEX card for it. I don't have to go out and buy coffee. It comes to me! Talk
about a treat!" Pamela has even purchased dinnerware through the Gevalia catalog they include
with her monthly shipments: "They were really pretty. The dishes are very elegant; they are classy. I
just love using them and showing them to my friends. I want to buy some other things they have in
the catalogue". As a single parent constantly challenged with work and child responsibilities, Pamela
is always searching for ways to rest and recharge for another demanding day. Gevalia connects with
her by addressing these current concerns as well.

P: (describing her Wednesday night 'coffee connection' club with her three 'good female friends') I
think it is the relaxing issue again when you go with a cup of coffee and a cigarette in your handand
you are sitting there completely relaxed surrounded by a bunch of people who care about you.
Another treat I guess. I mean, that certainly is a really terrific way to treat yourself good.

While Pamela dwells on her passion for Gevalia when discussing the brand, her intentions reveal
only a circumscribed commitment to the brand. Unlike Wendy, who would feel guilty using other
brands, Pamela is accepting of other brand partners. She is "in love with Gevalia, but not married to
it." She is "very happy with Gevalia," however, and "sees no point in changing". Her faithfulness lies
in her emotional bond with the brand, and not in formal pledges of fidelity or anticipated future
commitments.