THE CHILD CONSUMER-BRAND RELATIONSHIP : A BUILDING BLOCKS MODEL

This proposed study applies the idea of consumer-brand relationships to child consumers. Longitudinal brand loyalty studies have shown that brand preferences in consumers persist into adulthood. This study adds on earlier work by Ji (2000) and draws on Fournier’s (1998) work in applying relationship theory to consumer-brand relationships. It combines this with other theoretical strands to propose a model to better understand this relationship. Brand Loyalty (quality of the relationship), Brand personality as well as the child’s Motivation, Opportunity and Ability are offered as contributory factors that build children’s relationships with brands. The rationale for the study is seen in its usefulness both to academics and to practitioners in creating a better and fuller understanding of why some brands build relationships with consumers that last through to adulthood while other brands do not. If the factors that identify brands with high relationship potential can be identified, marketers can work towards creating brands that can develop and sustain longterm relationships with consumers spanning different life-stages. Introduction and Literature The idea of consumers forming relationships with brands is not a new concept. Early longitudinal studies into brand loyalty by Guest (1944,1964), showed that at least 23% (within the product categories studied) of childhood brand choices persisted into adulthood. Consumer Socialisation studies have always emphasised this idea. Guest (1964) suggests that children’s early experiences with brands may serve as definite influences on their later choices. That consumers develop relationships with particular brands that tend to last a long time is shown by the work of Fournier (1998). Fournier’s study with a female adult sample indicates that some adults have a ‘nostalgic’ relationship with some brands used in childhood. One of her respondents (a middle-aged woman) hated the smell of Estee Laude rperfume, but still used it regularly because it was the brand her mother used. In this instance, the nostalgia factor overcame the rational/ personal preference aspect of the consumer’s relationship with the brand. Fournier calls this particular type of relationship with a brand the ‘Childhood Friendship’ relationship. She suggests that today ‘relationship principles have replaced short-term exchange notions in marketing’ (p343), and the idea of understanding better the relationships that consumers have with brands is therefore an increasingly important one. Fournier (1998) suggests that in extending the relationship metaphor to the person-brand context, three main issues need to be exploredthe legitimacy (potential) of the brand as a relationship partner, the type of relationship that the consumer has with the brand and the quality of the relationship with the brand. She further suggests that brand personality is one possible determining factor and may be useful in helping develop closer and more enduring consumerbrand relationships. The Fournier study identifies an important aspect of longterm brand loyaltythat of the nature of relationships consumers have with their favorite brands. However given the small size of her sample and the exploratory/qualitative nature of her study it is hard to extrapolate such findings to overall populations. Additionally, it is not enough to study the existing adult consumerbrand relationship without trying to understand better how and why some relationships develop into lifetime commitment to a brand while others do not. To understand this better we need to go back and study the development of these relationships in childhood. As Ward (the first consumer behaviourist to define ‘consumer socialisation’) said “ Understanding processes by which children acquire consumption-related skills, knowledge and attitudes and how these persist into adulthood is important to publicpolicy formulation and the development of consumer education programs” (1974 p.1). Ji (2000) takes this concept into the child consumer-brand relationship context and explores how child consumer-brand relationships may differ from that of adult consumers. Ji uses Fournier’s (1998) facets of quality of relationship (as an alternative to brand loyalty and builds these into what she calls the MOA Framework. This consists of Motivation, Opportunity and Ability of the child to form a relationship with the brand. She suggests that the degree of motivation (the degree to which the brand helps define the child’s self-concept) can help determine the nature of their relationship with the brand. The opportunity to form a relationship is based on the experience and contact that the child has with the brand. In some cases the child may consume or use (directly experience) the brand. In other cases the child’s experiences with the brand may be vicarious or indirect (family members, friends, favorite television characters, role models use/consume the brand). The more opportunity that the child has to interact with the brand the better the chances of a child-brand relationship developing. The third facet that Ji refers to is the ability of the child to form such relationships. The cognitive ability of the child to form such relationships is largely determined by the stage of cognitive development it is at. The affective ability refers to the child’s ability to form a relationship with emotive elements in it. This may be largely determined by the socialization influences around it. Behavioural ability refers to the ability of the child to act upon its relationship in terms of requesting/using the brand. In the Millward Brown BRANDZ (2000) study, the relationship that children had with selected, successful brands was explored. The results were mapped onto a ‘brand relationship’ pyramid that denoted different degrees or levels at which a child could relate to a brand. A ‘Building Blocks’ model is offered as a means of better understanding this relationship. In the North American context, McNeal (1998) has estimated that children (4-12 years) have purchase influence in at least 62 product categories and equals about US$150 billion annually. As McNeal suggests (1987), children form three distinct markets – the direct market, an influential market (as influencers of adult consumption decisions) and a future market (as future adult consumers). In their capacity as influencers and as future consumers, the understanding of the development of their relationships with brands and the implications of such relationships on the ‘influencer’ and ‘future’ market is imperative. While much has been done in consumer research with children in the North American context, there is a paucity of such academic research in the Australian context. While Australia is comparable in its social and marketing trends to the USA, results need to be tested and confirmed in the context of Australian consumers. For these two important reasons, there is a great need to explore the development of child-brand relationships in the Australian context. Market Research/practitioner studies have been carried out in the UK (Millward Brown, BRANDZ study 2000) and elsewhere, but there needs to be a marrying of such findings to academic research and theoretical frameworks. The purpose of this study is to work toward bridging this research gap in some measure Figure 1: A Building Blocks model for Understanding Child-Brand Relationships Brand Personality Sincerity Excitement Competence Fun Trendy MOA Space Motivation (Development of Self Concept) Opportunity (Direct or Indirect) Ability (Cognitive, Affective and Behavioural) Quality of Relationship (Strength of Brand Loyalty) Connecting (Lovers, Intimates, Partners) Owning (Possessors, Self Connectors) Knowing (Friends, Acquaintances,Strangers) A Building Blocks Model For Understanding Child-Brand Relationships The model shown in Figure 1 proposes Brand Personality and the MOA volume as two determinants of increasing and sustaining the child-brand relationship. The MOA space as described by Ji (2000) suggests that the more the brand helps the child define her/his selfconcept, the better their cognitive ability, and the greater the opportunity of interacting directly with the brand; the stronger the child-brand relationship will be. The other‘block’ is that of Brand Personality. As with adults (Aaker 1997), the personality of the brand has a significant influence on a consumer’s relationship with a brand. This, would be a significant factor in building a strong relationship even though the type of brand personalities that appeal to a child consumers may differ quite significantly from those that may be used to achieve an enduring ‘connection ‘ with the adult consumer. Prior to this, especially in cognitively early stages when the ‘ability’ of the child cannot sustain a strong relationship, the child may merely ‘know’ or ‘own’ the brand. These are seen as steps toward the ultimate of connecting or developing a bond with the brand which may lead to a longer term relationship. Research Plan and Method An exploratory and qualitative methodology is proposed in approaching the research problem. 60 children will be interviewed in ‘friendship’ pairs about their feelings for particular brands of products. Three product categories will be used in accordance to Munson and Spivey (1981) who recommend that publicly consumed product categories may have more potential for symbolic meaning and therefore implications for the development of brand relationships. Product categories chosen will be those with potential for use over a long time (over different life stages). This is necessary because of the need to explore the development of brand relationships in childhood that have the potential to persist into adulthood. Exploring a child’s relationship with an exclusively childhood brand such as ‘Pokemon backpacks’ will defeat the purpose of exploring long term brand loyalty. Cognitive ability is posited as one of the fact