Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Purpose This paper aims to examine the sources of consumer‐brand relationship investment, specifically isolating the sources and outcomes of communality and exchange relationship characteristics. Design/methodology/approach The paper utilizes a survey‐based empirical study and subsequent structural modeling approach to test a series of hypotheses concerning how brand performance perceptions influence the development of consumer relationship connections. Findings The paper finds that perceptions of product performance and service quality influence the development of brand reliability and brand fidelity respectively. Similarly, brand reliability is the primary source of an exchange orientation, while brand fidelity leads to communal brand connections and, ultimately, consumer‐brand relationship investment. Research limitations/implications This research is limited by the scope of the sample, fast food restaurants. Future research should explore consumer relationship investment in other product and service categories in order to determine the extent to which relationship development processes vary by product category. Practical implications Brands that wish to develop enduring relationships with their customers must understand the relative impact of both personal and functional (exchange) relationship characteristics on the development of relationship investment. Each has a specific role to play and the roles of each vary at different relationship stages. Originality/value This research offers at least three significant contributions to the marketing discipline and marketing practice. First, it introduces constructs and associated scales for brand fidelity, communality, exchange and relationship investment. Second, it demonstrates how brand service and product performance differentially contribute to two dimensions of consumer‐brand relationships. Finally, it describes three discrete relationship development stages that play specific roles in the evolution of consumer‐brand relationship investment.
Hess et al. (Sat,) studied this question.