BUS602: Marketing Management

The following sections present an analysis of the dominant research findings and are explored in the context of the extant literature.

Researchers, who examine brand loyalty using rational or cognitive criteria, argue that loyalty to a brand is the result of repeated satisfaction with that brand and not because of any strongly held attitude or deeply held commitment to the brand. The consumer chooses a brand that provides a satisfactory experience, and measurement of that satisfaction will centre on repurchase or purchase frequency. As identified, it is important to distinguish between loyalty and repeat purchase behavior. Only when consumers evaluate different brands, and make a deliberate decision to purchase one of those brands, is loyalty manifested, otherwise repeat purchasing results from inertia, where the same 10International Journal of Business and Management December, 2008 product is bought out of habit. Many in the literature rule out behavior as a dominant measure of loyalty, arguing that behavior does not imply that loyalty exists, but that it may merely reflect happenstance, in effect, inertia. Interestingly, some respondents provide some evidence to support this assertion: 

Male, 35, B

In this context, the intention throughout the in-depth interviews was to discover the reasons why loyalties do exist among respondents, in an attempt to differentiate between repurchase inertia and repurchase loyalty. As a result, respondents detailed specific reasons for the existence of loyalties over and above mere inertia to stay with one brand:

Female, 28, C1

Essentially, many respondents proved to be very rational in their purchase behavior, seeking out brands that provide a satisfactory experience:

Female, 34, C1

Furthermore, respondents indicated that value for money was of great importance in the development of brand loyalties. The research indicates that consumers might become loyal if they perceive they are getting good value:

Male, 29, C1

From the research findings it is clear that many consumers expect value for money and do not want to spend money on something when they are not getting value:

Female, 45, C1

Such a view is also seen to support those who found that two–thirds of shoppers always compare prices before choosing a product. Arguably this results from the increase in price competition in mass consumer markets.

On initial examination therefore, loyalty appears to be founded on preference, quality and perceived value for money, factors which are seen to transcend the many psychological reasons given for loyal behavior:

Female, 45, C1

A significant point to emerge from the research is that for some consumers the name, image or personality of the brand is irrelevant. Rather, what drives their purchase decision is their liking of the product, essentially their liking for the functional performance of the product. For these consumers the brand is immaterial:

Female, 30, C1

Female, 40, C2

This finding supports Moriarty et al. (1996), who found that instead of having a desire to have a relationship with a company or a brand, some consumers are more concerned with the product offering. This significant finding indicates that for many consumers, functional benefits of the brand guide the purchase decision.

In this context, there appears to be significant evidence from the research findings to suggest that cognitive reasoning can explain much of the brand loyalties that develop in mass markets. It could further be argued that, while other researchers have identified many deep psychological reasons for loyalty, practical reasons such as taste preference and quality emerge from the current research as important determinants of loyalty in FMCG markets. It is apparent from respondents to this study that practical considerations such as preference, quality and value for money may be enough to drive much brand loyalty in FMCG markets.

This finding is significant and requires further examination as it supports traditional methods of examining brand loyalty in terms of repeated satisfaction with a brand. It also supports a small cohort of more recent researchers who argue that examining brand loyalties from this perspective has more relevance for FMCG markets than does the relationship/attitudinal perspective. It should also provide an important future research area, given that a substantial body of branding literature suggests that cognitive decision making is not that significant when it comes to brand loyalties in mass consumer markets. Many who adopt the attitudinal perspective to brand loyalty rule out rational behavior as a dominant measure of that loyalty, arguing that behavior and satisfaction may not be enough to confirm that true loyalty is present. Based on respondents to the current research, it appears that a significant group of consumers base their purchase decisions on strong rational criteria, where cognitive decision–making dominates, out of which loyalties may develop.

When probed about any deeper psychological attachments that might exist to brands, rational arguments were diluted, allowing for other conceptualizations to surface. Tradition and nostalgia were dominant among these conceptualizations, with many respondents also expressing deep affections for certain brands:

Female, 36, C1

Male, 34, B

These findings support Fournier (1998), who found nostalgia and tradition high among reasons for loyal behavior in mass consumer markets. Those who study loyalty in this manner also examine the emotional and psychological attachments that consumers have to brands. Measurement studies of loyalty from an emotional perspective take the form of investigating how much people like the brand, feel committed to it and have positive beliefs and feelings about it; essentially they measure consumers' attitudes. Loyalty at this level is likely to be deeper than that developed at a cognitive level because it is rooted at a psychological level and is demonstrative of commitment to a brand:

Female, 60, C2

In this case, the brand provides meaning and is important to the person because it connects with her life. She is likely to expend time and resources in order to ensure this consistent purchase behavior, behavior which has endured through a generation and is likely to continue into the future. The age of the respondent is important. At sixty years of age, this respondent had many years of purchasing and of using the brand, as had her mother before her. Therefore, a deep-rooted commitment to and nostalgia for the brand is evident.

Where loyalty exists at this attitudinal level it is likely that the brand will seem like a friend to the consumer, towards which they have a sense of commitment and belonging:

Female, 30, C1

In such instances the brand becomes an integral part of the consumer's daily life, and progressively the role that the brand plays becomes more important to the consumer:

Female, 34, C1

In support, therefore, of those who examine brand loyalty in terms of both patronage and attitude, this research has found that significant loyalties can develop where the consumer holds favorable attitudes towards the brand, and the brand plays a meaningful role in the life of the consumer. This finding reflects the dominant literature on brand loyalty in recent years, where the focus of most loyalty studies has been on the attitudinal perspective. As revealed, however, this study has also found that a dominant reason for loyal behavior in FMCG markets is repeated satisfaction with a brand. Thus, an interesting perspective on brand loyalty emerges, where cognitive reasoning and positive attitudes are both revealed as reasons for brand loyalty in FMCG markets. This indicates that research studies going forward should focus on both the cognitive and the attitudinal perspectives on loyalty, rather than the either or approaches to those studies that have dominated research in the area.

The role that bonds play at both a cognitive and emotional level in the development of brand loyalty is essential to explore, if the nuances and dimensionality of brand loyalty are to be truly understood. As identified earlier, trust, commitment, interdependence, reciprocity, empathy, cooperation, and satisfaction are the most mentioned bonds in the literature.

Trust is defined in the literature as a feeling of security held by the consumer that the brand will meet his/her consumption expectations. In this way it is likely that consumers will develop an emotional or psychological attachment to the brand. Interestingly, respondents to the research exhibit a high level of trust in brands:

Female, 60, C2

Such observations support the many definitions of trust in the literature where trust is defined as confidence that one will find what is desired. The literature also indicates that trust evolves over time. Support for this assertion was found among respondents who largely agreed that trust has to be built through experience of using the brand:

Female, 34, B

Trust, therefore, is learnt over time. Respondents to the current research did not place trust in new brands that they had no prior experience with. Thus, the existence of either repeat purchase or loyal behavior is essential to the development of trust. Interestingly, trust was found to be present where loyalties developed as a result of cognitive reasoning and also where loyalties developed as a result of emotional attachments to brands:

Female, 28, C1

Female, 34, B

As such, it is apparent that consumers can have trust in brands to perform regardless of the nature of the loyalty that exists. This is an important finding, and indicates that where consumers have trust in brands they are likely to continue purchasing that brand in the future. In this context it is argued that, if commitment is to develop, trust must be present). While respondents to the research displayed relatively high levels of trust in brands that they are loyal to, in general the same levels of commitment were not expressed, with respondents showing varying degrees of commitment:

Female, 34, B

Interestingly, the desire for choice appears to be the main reason for the lack of commitment exhibited by respondents. It is apparent from the research that consumers reject companies' attempts at choice reduction and so is reluctant to commit to any brand in the long term:

Female, 34, C1

Such an observation supports Crosby et al. (1990), who in the relationship–marketing literature found that consumers jump ship to other more attractive deals, regardless of their previous relationship status. In such cases the consumer might be reflective of what Rowley (2005) termed the convenience seeker, someone who engages in regular repeat purchase behavior, but is susceptible to promotions from other brands:

Female, 36

In general, however, respondents indicated that they have what can be termed temporary commitment to many brands. Essentially, regardless of whether loyalty exists for cognitive or emotional reasons, respondents show consistent repurchase behavior but are not inclined to say that they will continue to show similar behavior in the future:

Female, 60, C2

It can be seen in such situations that, while consumers indicate loyal tendencies to a brand, they are reluctant to use the term commitment in describing those tendencies. It appears that this is so, given the desire for choice that most respondents to the research indicated. Essentially, even though they may show signs of committed behavior, they are reluctant to describe it as such, given that they want other choices available to them, regardless of whether they wish to purchase from those available choices or not. Such a finding supports that of Fournier and Yao who described such feelings as those which do not lie "in formal pledges of fidelity or anticipated future commitments".

This finding is in contrast to that, where it was found that high levels of long-term commitment and attachments to brands can and do exist in certain circumstances. Examples of this include the women who would only use Howards OneWay and Nescafe as discussed earlier. High levels of commitment were also discovered in situations where consumers are forced into loyalty with a particular brand:

Female, 40, C2

In the context of these examples it can be concluded that certain brands provide meaning and satisfaction, feel like a friend and offer functional, emotional and self-expressive benefits to the customer. The research findings indicate that this can occur in situations where there is either temporary commitment, or high levels of long-term commitment to a brand. When exploring the nature of brand–customer bonding in this way, Fournier and Yao discovered that certain brands act "like a true best friend". Further evidence of such brand–customer bonding was also found among respondents to the research:

Female, 28, C1

Bonds such as satisfaction and contentment are indicated by the following respondent:

Female, 32, C1

Respondents to the research regularly discussed their feelings about brands in this way. Evidence of bonds such as empathy, fulfillment and satisfaction were present in many of the discussions with respondents:

Female, 34,

Such perceptions of a brand typically result in the development of strong bonds between the customer and the brand. Where such bonds exist, Fournier (1998) argues that the brand contributes to the customers' life in significant ways:

Female, 60, C2

This perspective indicates that certain brands can add meaning to the life of a consumer. Indeed support for this perspective was found throughout the current research:

Female, 28, C1

The research findings indicate that brand–customer bonds grow stronger as the commitment of the customer for the brand intensifies. Evidence of very high levels of commitment to brands was found among some respondents to the research:

Female, 36, C1

Indeed, Fournier and Yao (1997, 460) describe the nature of that commitment as lying in the "emotional bond" that the customer has for a brand. It is important for marketers to understand the reasons why these bonds exist and to attempt to nurture them to enhance the strength of the consumers' attitudes towards a brand.

The current research confirms that, where loyalties develop as a result of emotional attachments, strong bonds can form where the brand becomes established in the life of the consumer. The research also indicates that bonds can form where consumers are loyal for cognitive reasons. It could be argued given the research findings that bonds are likely to be stronger where consumers are loyal for emotional reasons (as shown in the Howards OneWay, Pampers and Persil examples). It is probable that it is for this reason, coupled with the swing in loyalty studies from behavioral to attitudinal, that bonding at an emotional level has received more attention in the literature over the past decade, than bonding at a cognitive level. Researchers have predominantly explored the nature of bonds that are present for deep, emotional reasons. This study however, indicates the necessity to refocus attention at bonding at a cognitive level, given the many cognitive reasons given for loyal behavior by respondents to the research.

Synthesis of the current research findings therefore indicates that the debate in the literature over cognitive V emotive reasons for loyalty should be replaced with an appreciation that both have relevance for the study of brand loyalty in FMCG markets. While some consumers might be loyal because a brand "reaches into the consumers' heart as well as their mind and creates an intimate, emotional connection that the consumer can't live without", it is also the case that a consumer might be loyal simply as a result of repeated satisfaction with that brand.

Progressing this thinking even further, the research findings also indicate that future thinking on brand loyalty would benefit from consideration of cognitive and emotive reasons for loyalty as interdependent determinants. It can be argued that cognitive reasons for loyalty such as quality and taste preference might over time develop into an emotional attachment to a brand, where the consumer develops affection for that brand. Similarly it can be argued that if a consumer has affection for a brand or buys a brand for reasons of tradition it is probable that they like the taste of it and believe in its quality. In this context it can be argued that cognitive reasons underpin emotional reasons for loyalty. Building on this argument, this research further proposes that cognitive reasons for loyalty can also incorporate an attitudinal perspective. For example, it is apparent that loyalty to a brand for reasons of liking the taste or quality can be described as loyalty for reasons of positive attitude towards the brand. As such it can be argued that the polarization of cognitive and emotive determinants of loyalty might be replaced with a study of brand loyalty that moves to a more central position. This thinking is illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Interdependent determinants of loyalty

Building on Figure 1, it can be argued that where bonds develop at a cognitive level, they can develop in intensity if the reasons for loyalty become more emotional as the consumer becomes more attached to the brand. For example, over time 'liking' a brand for reasons of trust in and satisfaction with that brand might develop into 'love' for a brand if the reason for loyalty becomes more emotional. Further to this it is argued that similar bonds support loyalty at both a cognitive and emotional level. For example, a consumer might be loyal because of the quality of the brand and thus be satisfied with the brand; similarly a consumer might be loyal for reasons of nostalgia and also be satisfied with the brand. As illustrated in the diagram it is also possible that the presence of loyalty might lead to the development of bonds that initially did not underpin that loyalty. Thus, a consumer might have trust in a brand, and as the loyalty that exists to that brand strengthens, other bonds such as empathy and fulfillment might develop. In this context it must be remembered that while bonds underpin loyalty, further bonds can also develop where consumers are loyal. Thus, both consumer behavior and marketing literatures should benefit from an in-depth exploration of the nature of brand–customer bonding that recognizes that bonds develop for different reasons and in different contexts. In this way the important and complex area of customer–brand bonding might receive more attention that it has hitherto, paving the way for an informative insight into the determinants of loyalty. As a result, those interested in nurturing customer loyalty might be better positioned for such endeavors.