Suchergebnisse

Abstract
Globalization and technological advancements have spurred a rapid increase in the number of novel brands in the marketplace. When and why consumers choose a novel brand are increasingly important questions for marketers. The present research explores these questions and posits that consumers are more likely to choose a novel brand depending upon the choice context. Specifically, we theorize that consumers are more likely to choose a novel brand under means-goal conflict (as opposed to means-goal congruence). We suggest this effect occurs because in contexts involving means-goal conflict consumers are motivated to justify their choice, and novel brands afford consumers the opportunity to do so. That is, unlike familiar brands, novel brands lack strong associations in consumers' minds, which allows consumers the ability interpret them as less impedimental (ie, less harmful) to their goal (a choice-justification strategy), thereby increasing choice. We test and find support for our hypotheses about novel brand choice across eight studies. The present research contributes to the literatures on branding, consumer goals and choice, and means-goal associations, and has implications for managers launching new brands into the competitive global marketplace.

Abstract
This article proposes a novel theory, based on relational paradoxes, to explain how consumers enable or disable their relationships with brands over time. Analysis of data from in-depth, longitudinal interviews with 26 consumers reveals four relational tensions and seven actions that consumers take in response to these tensions, thus affecting the course and character of their brand relationships. Four consumer actions enable the consumer–brand relationship by creating patterns of relationship change based on equilibrium or transformation; three actions disable the relationship via patterns of vicious cycles or conflict. Overall, consumers do relationship work as they act to navigate tensions, thereby creating, maintaining, changing, and terminating their brand relationships. This research has implications for current theory on brand relationship templates, dysfunctional brand relationships, and customer relationship management.

Abstract
Individuals often evaluate, purchase, and consume brands in the presence of others, including close others. Yet relatively little is known about the role brand preferences play in relationships. In the present research, the authors explore how the novel concept of brand compatibility, defined as the extent to which individuals have similar brand preferences (e.g., both partners prefer the same brand of soda), influences life satisfaction. The authors propose that when brand compatibility is high, life satisfaction will also be high. Conversely, because low brand compatibility may be a source of conflict for the relationship, the authors propose that it will be associated with reduced life satisfaction. Importantly, the authors predict that the effects of brand compatibility on conflict and life satisfaction will depend upon relationship power. Across multiple studies and methodologies, including experimental designs (studies 2, 3, 5) and dyadic data from real-life couples (studies 1, 4, 6), the authors test and find support for their hypotheses. By exploring how a potentially unique form of compatibility influences life satisfaction, including identifying a key moderator and an underlying mechanism, the current research contributes to the literatures on branding, close relationships, consumer well-being, and relationship power.