The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0566.

htm

EJM 45,7/8

Strategic relationship management and service brand marketing

Shu-pei Tsai
Public Relations and Advertising Department, Shih Hsin University in Taiwan, Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China
Abstract
Purpose In recent years, the notion of consumer-brand relationships has drawn increasing attention from both researchers and practitioners in the eld of service brand marketing. However, different paradigms conceptualize and measure this notion from diversied perspectives. The current study, integrating and modifying the main concepts of different consumer-brand relationships paradigms, proposes to test an integrative-model. Design/methodology/approach The paper conducts an exploratory investigation and a cross-regional survey, alongside the statistical technique of structural equation modeling, conrms the appropriateness of the entire model structure as well as the causal path pattern explicated by the proposed Strategic Management of Service Brand Relationships model. Findings According to the Strategic Management of Service Brand Relationships model, service brand commitment and service brand love partially mediate the effects of eight relationship components on service brand loyalty. Moreover, amid the eight relationship components, there are three components (satisfaction of affective attributes, trust, and self-concept connection) also exercising a direct positive inuence on service brand loyalty. Originality/value The Strategic Management of Service Brand Relationships model delineates the antecedents and consequence of positive service brand relationships. Specic indicators of the latent constructs as well as the causal pathways among these constructs provide strategic principles for fostering strong and durable brand loyalty through consumer-brand relationships in the context of service brand marketing. Keywords Consumers, Strategic management, Brands, Brand management Paper type Research paper

1194
Received January 2009 Revised April 2009 Accepted October 2009

European Journal of Marketing Vol. 45 No. 7/8, 2011 pp. 1194-1213 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0309-0566 DOI 10.1108/03090561111137679

Introduction In recent years, the notion of consumer-brand relationships has received increasing attention from services-related researchers and practitioners, who deem it highly contributory to maximizing the performance of service brand marketing (e.g. Sweeney and Chew, 2000; Ekinci et al., 2004; Fullerton, 2005; OLoughlin and Szmigin, 2008; Zhang and Bloemer, 2008). Consumer-brand relationships refer to the psychological bonds formed between the consumer and the brand. Building such relationships is believed as essential element in fostering strong and durable brand loyalty of target consumers. In relevant studies of consumer-brand relationships three theoretical paradigms have emerged: brand relationship quality, relationship commitment and brand love. The brand relationship quality paradigm conceptualizes the relationship components in cognitive, supportive, socio-affective, emotional and behavioral dimensions correlate to constitute the single construct of brand relationship quality,

which culminates in long-lasting brand loyalty (e.g. Fournier, 1998; Park et al., 2002; Chang and Chieng, 2006; Smit et al., 2007). According to the second paradigm, relationship commitment is a crucial mediator; the effects of relationship satisfaction, relationship termination cost, relationship trust (e.g. Hess and Story, 2006; Van Goolen and Franc ois, 2007; Sanchez-Franco et al., 2009) as well as relationship investment, attractiveness of relationship alternatives (e.g. Breivik and Thorbjrnsen, 2008; Li and Petrick, 2008) are mediated through this variable on brand loyalty. As for the third paradigm, the passionate brand love that the consumer feels for the brand is the primary driver of brand loyalty; such love is metaphorically analogous to the romantic affection existing in interpersonal relationships (e.g. Roberts, 2004; Carroll and Ahuvia, 2006; Albert et al., 2008). The said three paradigms, though all accentuating the power of consumer-brand relationships, conceptualize and measure its antecedents and consequence from diversied theoretical perspectives. Such diversity represents vigor of theoretical construction but also leads to managerial uncertainty about how to take most appropriate actions to put consumer-brand relationships to best use for service brand marketing. Specically, in terms of building consumer-brand relationships, what can be the best strategic management approach? Should the service brand marketer deal with the multiple relationship components aggregately as a single factor (the brand relationship quality paradigm), or focus more on the mediation effect of relationship commitment (the relationship commitment paradigm), or pay particular attention to the passionate love for the brand (the brand love paradigm)? Another concern resides in the applicability of the three paradigms to service brands in strict sense. In some studies the effectiveness of consumer-brand relationships is examined by data obtained from service brands, while in some other studies data come from physical-product brands. There are also researchers who recruit samples representing both types of brands. Thus, the general research result is not necessarily applicable to a broad range of service brands. To address the issues surrounding the notion of consumer-brand relationships in the context of service brand marketing, the current study rst reviews the relevant theoretical background of the three paradigms, and then conducts two stages of research for developing and testing an integrative model. In consequence, the Strategic Management of Service Brand Relationships model is validated and proven applicable to a broad range of service brands Theoretical background Extension from relationship marketing In contrast with physical-product brands, service brands are characterized by: . intangibility: the value delivered by the service provider is much less tangible; . heterogeneity: intensive interaction between the consumer and the service provider makes each service encounter a heterogeneous experience; . inseparability: the production and consumption of services occur simultaneously and inseparably; and . perishability: services cannot be stocked and perish immediately after consumption nishes (e.g. Zeithaml et al., 1985; Bowen, 1990; DallOlmo Riley and de Chernatony, 2000; Lovelock and Gummesson, 2004; Laroche, 2007).

Strategic RM and service brand marketing 1195

EJM 45,7/8

1196

These characteristics necessitate the marketing endeavors for service brands distinguishable from those for physical-product brands. Thus, many academics and practitioners of service brand marketing have been intensely attending to the notion of consumer-brand relationships. They gear marketing emphasis towards cultivating relational exchanges from which the consumer derives intangible yet perceived value in the service attributes, gratifying experience in the service encounters as well as personally relevant meaning in the service consumption (e.g. Sweeney and Chew, 2000; Ekinci et al., 2004; Fullerton, 2005; OLoughlin and Szmigin, 2008; Zhang and Bloemer, 2008). The notion of consumer-brand relationships, referring to the psychological bonds that form between the consumer and the brand, is closely linked to theoretical development of Relationship Marketing (RM). Proponents of RM, revising the traditional concept of transactional marketing that is economic psychology-oriented, adopt social psychology and interpersonal relationships theories in marketing strategy formulation. RM has begun to gain popularity in the elds of both industrial, and consumer marketing since more than two decades ago (e.g. Dwyer et al., 1987; Heide and Stump, 1995; Kaltcheva and Barton, 1999; Thorbjrnsen et al., 2002; Seijts and Latham, 2003; Swaminathan et al., 2007, Bolton et al., 2008). Conceptually, it aims to establish, maintain and strengthen long-term relationships between sellers and buyers. Operationally, it goes beyond departmental boundaries in order that different functions are coalesced to achieve holistic effectiveness of relationship management for industrial and consumer marketing. In the context of industrial marketing, RM concentrates on business-to-business interactions, while its focus shifts to relationship management between the corporation/brand and its end-users in the context of service brand marketing (e.g. Seijts and Latham, 2003; Swaminathan et al., 2007; Bolton et al., 2008). The notion of consumer-brand relationships, belonging to the school of RM for consumer marketing, elaborates on the psychological bonds formed between the consumer brand and its end-users. Also adopting social psychology and interpersonal relationships theories, the researchers of consumer-brand relationships attempt to validate the premise that relational exchanges rather than transactional exchanges as essential element in fostering strong and durable brand loyalty of target consumers. In qualitative or quantitative research projects, data obtained from sampled end-users of various consumer brands are used to examine the inuence of consumer-brand relationships. In this vein of research, three theoretical paradigms have emerged. The brand relationship quality paradigm advocates multiple relationship components aggregately correlate into a single relationship quality factor, the relationship commitment paradigm places more focus more on the mediation effect of relationship commitment, and the brand love paradigm pays particular attention to the passionate love for the brand. The three paradigms of consumer-brand relationships are elaborated in the following sections. Brand relationship quality paradigm It is Fournier (1998) who rst proposed the brand relationship quality (BRQ) paradigm. Scholars including Kaltcheva and Barton (1999), Park et al. (2002), Chang and Chieng (2006) and Smit et al. (2007) have put it to further empirical testing. Through in-depth interviews, Fournier (1998) comes up with six components of brand relationship

quality: partner quality (cognitive belief), interdependence (behavioral tie), intimacy (supportive belief), commitment (attitudinal tie), self-connection (socio-affective bond), and passion/love (emotional bond). Fournier (1998) emphasizes that the BRQ framework is preliminary and leaves undened particular linkages between BRQ facets and consumer or brand actions and between BRQ facets and various outcome variables. Theoretically, BRQ is in essence a higher-order construct that accounts for all of the relationship dimensions, suggesting the relationship components in various dimensions function as indicators of total relationship quality. In other words, these components should correlate as an entity because they stem from a common source. This original framework does not provide clear guidelines for empirical model specication. Thus, much research effort has been revolving around structural delineation of the relationship components in cognitive, supportive, socio-affective, emotional and behavioral dimensions that the BRQ framework conceptualizes. Empirical research conducted by such researchers as Ekinci et al. (2004), Chang and Chieng (2006), Kressmann et al. (2006) and Smit et al. (2007) report ndings in one way or another divergent from the original BRQ framework. Most noteworthy, brand relationship quality is found not necessarily in a second-order factor hierarchy (e.g. Park et al., 2002; Chang and Chieng, 2006; Smit et al., 2007). Besides, there are relationship components proven modiable or removable and some others addable (Park et al., 2002; Ekinci et al., 2004; Kressmann et al., 2006; Smit et al., 2007). For example, Park et al. (2002) view the construct of brand relationship quality as formative instead of substantive, so the relationship components in the original BRQ framework do not have to correlate to constitute a second-order construct. On the other hand, Chang and Chieng (2006) develop a revised framework of consumer-brand relationships by taking the experiential perspective, revealing that individual as well as shared experiences work through brand association, brand personality, brand attitude, and brand image to shape a rst-order of consumer-brand relationships. In order to further deal with the issues concerning the model structure of the original BRQ framework, Smit et al. (2007) conduct a large-scale survey and nd that BRQ is anteceded by eight (passionate attachment, intimacy, self-connection, nostalgic connection, love, partner quality, personal commitment and trust) instead of six relationship components as Fournier (1998) proposes. Moreover, the eight dimensions in tandem with brand personality typology (competent, sincere, exciting, sophisticated and rugged) exert inuences as two rst-order constructs of brand relationship quality. In short, the original BQR framework is revised by several scholars who re-designate BQR dimensions and re-arrange the impact-generation order of BQR. It requires more investigation to conrm the suitable dimensions in the BRQ framework and their sequential order in generating impact on brand loyalty. Relationship commitment paradigm The Relationship Commitment (RC) paradigm can be further subdivided into two branches: the commitment-trust model and the relationship investment model. The commitment-trust model is based on the commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. It is Morgan and Hunt (1994) who rst present the models framework, which theorizes relationship-building process with a dual-mediator (relationship commitment and relationship trust) model structure. Originally, it applies to the context of business-to-business relationship management. Then researchers including

Strategic RM and service brand marketing 1197

EJM 45,7/8

1198

Sheth and Parvatiyar (1995) and Hennig-Thurau et al. (2002) provide evidence that the commitment-trust model also applies to service brand marketing. Relationship commitment refers to the persistent state of mind to maintain a worthwhile relationship, and relationship trust is conceptualized as condence in the relational partners reliability and integrity. The two constructs mediate the effects of relationship termination cost (monetary and psychological cost incurred by terminating the relationship), relationship benets (functional and affective benets provided by the relationship), shared values (personal values shared by the relational partner) and opportunistic behavior (violation of behavioral norms for responsibilities and obligations of the relational partner) on the formation of brand loyalty. Briey, commitment and trust are central to successful relationship-building because they: . preserve relationship by cooperating with exchange partners; . resist attractive short-term alternatives in favor of the expected long-term benets of staying with existing partners; and . view potentially high-risk actions as being prudent with the belief that their partners will not act opportunistically. Of late, empirical ndings reported by several relationship-building researchers exhibit minor yet noticeable variations from the Morgan/Hunts framework. According to Fullerton (2005), Gustafsson et al. (2005), Hess and Story (2005, 2006) Van Goolen and Franc ois (2007) and Sanchez-Franco et al. (2009) among others, relationship satisfaction is antecedent to relationship trust, but primarily contributes to functional connections. On the other hand, personal connections stem from relationship trust. The relative strengths of personal and functional connections determine the cognitive and affective nature of relationship commitment outcomes. In other words, the revised commitment-trust model incorporates personal and functional connections, dividing relationship commitment into cognitive and affective aspects. Cognitive commitment results from calculating the functional benets, while affective commitment lies in appraisal of affective benets. The construct of satisfaction antecedes the cognitive aspect of relationship commitment, while the construct of trust antecedes the affective aspect of relationship commitment. In other words, perceived connections and benets in the functional and affective dimensions are highlighted as most signicant factors that exercise inuence on the augmentation of relationship commitment and relationship trust. The relationship investment model, another branch of the RC paradigm, is more cognition-oriented. It posits relationship commitment mediating the impact of relationship satisfaction, relationship investment and attractiveness of relationship alternatives on brand loyalty. Relationship satisfaction level refers to the sum of positive versus negative evaluations about the relationship partner; relationship investment describes the nancial resources, cognitive efforts and time put into a particular relationship; attractiveness of relationship alternatives refers to the judgment derived from comparing a partner and other alternative partners; (e.g. Geyer et al., 1991). Such researchers as Nysveen et al. (2005), Sung and Campbell (2007), Breivik and Thorbjrnsen (2008) and Li and Petrick (2008) use the relationship investment theory on studying a variety of physical-product and service brands, and in general conrm its predictability of brand loyalty. In contrast to the commitment-trust model, the relationship investment model does not include relationship trust as an

exogenous construct. Besides, it concentrates more on the cognitive aspect of commitment. Apparently, the researchers of the relationship investment model tend to accentuate the calculative nature of relationship commitment, which is determined by calculating the nancial resources, cognitive efforts and time invested in the relationship as well as the attractiveness of the current relational partner in comparison to other possible alternatives. Considering the major differences among the RC scholars, further examination is needed to compare the models that are based respectively on the commitment-trust theory and the relationship investment theory. Brand love paradigm The brand love (BL) paradigm combines the emotional attachment theory with consumer behavior studies, revolving around the impact of deep-seated emotions on consumer-brand relationships. Researchers of this paradigm conceptualize and empirically verify the consumers passionate love for the brand is the primary driver of brand loyalty. In a series of research projects, Roberts (2004), Ahuvia (2005) and Thomson et al. (2005) systematically analyze how and why passionate love can lead to strong and long-lasting brand loyalty. Besides, Whang et al. (2004) report empirical verication on brand love as an essential factor in enhancing brand loyalty; three dimensions of such love are proposed: passion, possessiveness and altruism. Of late, brand marketing scholars including Carroll and Ahuvia (2006), Albert et al. (2008), Fedorikhin et al. (2008), Park et al. (2009) and Carlson et al. (2009) report ndings that prove passionate love for the brand originates from brand attachment and predicts brand loyalty; the passionate love that the consumer feels for the brand is found metaphorically analogous to the romantic love existing in interpersonal relationships. Such analogy points to the possibility of transforming a brand relationship into a romantic relationship in which the consumer becomes so strongly attached to the brand that he or she is durably loyal to it. The BA paradigm is a comparatively new development and has yet to mature either in conceptual construction or in measurement instrumentation. More often than not, researchers in this vein seem unable to agree on several key points. Thomson et al. (2005) designate the three factors of affection, connection and passion as the emotional attachment antecedents of brand loyalty, so brand attachment seems to be dividable into three dimensions. On the other hand, empirical results reported by Carroll and Ahuvia (2006) point to the two dimensions of hedonism and self-expressiveness as most salient in inducing brand love. Hedonism characterizes delightful emotion, and self-expressiveness characterizes enforcement of self and social identities. In contrast, Albert et al. (2008) nd brand love consists of 11 dimensions: passion, duration, self-congruity, dreams, memories, pleasure, attraction, uniqueness, beauty, trust, and declaration of affect. However, Albert et al. (2008) do not specify the weight of each dimension. Of late, Park et al. (2009) conceptualize and empirically verify that brand-self connectedness is the most important predictor of brand attachment. It represents the three relational capabilities of the brand: gratifying the self through aesthetic/hedonic experiences, enriching the self through brand concept internalization, and enabling the self through product performance. The importance of brand-self connectedness for constituting brand attachment is also validated in the research results reported by Carlson et al. (2009).

Strategic RM and service brand marketing 1199

EJM 45,7/8

On the whole, the BL paradigm has been established as an inspirational approach for investigating consumer-brand relationships, but some denitional vagueness may render it less applicable to marketing practice. More efforts are required to clarify the vagueness about the paradigm. Exploratory investigation To integrate the main concepts of the three consumer-brand relationships paradigms in the context of service brand marketing, the current study conducted two stages of research. The rst stage aimed to develop a conceptual model, which was then further tested at the second stage with a large-scale survey. Such arrangement served four purposes: (1) Specication of latent constructs in the conceptual model. (2) Choice of proper model structure. (3) Measurement instrumentation. (4) Empirical validation of nalized model explicating strategic management of service brand relationships. In the exploratory investigation, the researcher integrated and modied the main concepts of BRQ, RC and BL paradigms. In the BRQ paradigm, the researcher consulted the original framework (Fournier, 1998) and the revised frameworks (Chang and Chieng, 2006; Smit et al., 2007) of Brand Relationship Quality; the six-component solution (partner quality, interdependence, intimacy, commitment, self-connection, and passion/love) and the eight-component solution (passionate attachment, intimacy, self-connection, nostalgic connection, love, partner quality, personal commitment and trust) as brand relationship quality components are considered. In the RC paradigm, the effects of relationship satisfaction, relationship termination cost, relationship trust (e.g. Hess and Story, 2006; Van Goolen and Franc ois, 2007) as well as relationship investment, attractiveness of relationship alternatives (e.g. Breivik and Thorbjrnsen, 2008; Li and Petrick, 2008) are taken into consideration as antecedents that impact on brand loyalty through the mediator of brand commitment. As for the BL paradigm, the researcher consulted: the two-dimension brand love conceptualization (hedonism and self-expressiveness) proposed by Carroll and Ahuvia (2006); the 11-dimension brand love conceptualization (passion, duration, self-congruity, dreams, memories, pleasure, attraction, uniqueness, beauty, trust, and declaration of affect) proposed by Albert et al. (2008); the concept of brand-self connectedness conceptualized and empirically veried by Park et al. (2009) and Carlson et al. (2009). Besides, the researcher interviewed 39 service brand consumers. The research assistants transferred their statements into declarative sentences on a series of cards that retained the exact terminology and phrases. All the cards, were sorted by the participants, according to the importance of each item. Focus group discussions were also held with the participants for more opinions. Based on the results from the in-depth interviews and focus group discussions, along with the previously mentioned main concepts of the three consumer-brand relationships paradigms that the current study took into consideration, an initial measurement was developed. Following the development of initial measurement, the researcher administered it on 197 consumers of three service brands. Data were analyzed by exploratory factor

1200

analysis, examining whether the identied items produce proposed factors and loaded on these factors as intended. Cronbachs measure reliability coefcient was calculated for the indicators of each construct and, with the cut-off level of 0.7, helped to eliminate the items of insignicant contribution for parsimony purpose. Afterwards, obtained data were further analyzed by the statistical technique of structural equation modeling, composed of conrmatory factor analysis for the measurement model and estimation of causal path parameters among the constructs hypothesized in the theoretical framework. After candidate models were compared, the Strategic Management of Service Brand Relationships (SM-SBR) conceptual model that best tted the integration of the three paradigms emerged as shown in Figure 1. In the proposed conceptual model, 11 latent constructs were identied: eight exogenous constructs (satisfaction of utilitarian attributes, satisfaction of affective attributes, brand-switching cost, uniqueness, privilege, trust, self-concept connection and delight), two mediators (service brand commitment and service brand love), and one endogenous construct (service brand loyalty): (1) Satisfaction of utilitarian attributes: the consumer is satised with the utilitarian and functional benets of the service brand (based both the commitment-trust model and the relationship investment model of the RC paradigm); (2) Satisfaction of affective attributes: the consumer is satised with the caring, attention and responsiveness of the brand (based on the BRQ paradigm, the commitment-trust model of the RC paradigm, and the BL paradigm); (3) Brand-switching cost: economic and psychological cost entailed by switching from the brand to other alternatives (based on both the commitment-trust model and the relationship investment model of the RC paradigm); (4) Uniqueness: the perceived uniqueness and extraordinariness derived from the service encounter of the service brand (based on the BL paradigm); (5) Privilege: the perceived privilege and special treatment derived from the service encounter of the service brand (based on the BL paradigm); (6) Trust: evaluation of the credibility, trustworthiness and integrity the brand demonstrates (based on the BRQ paradigm as well as the commitment-trust model of the RC paradigm); (7) Self-concept connection: the consumer identies with the symbolic meaning and image of the service brand (based on the BRQ paradigm, the commitment-trust model of the RC paradigm, and the BL paradigm); (8) Delight: pleasures and delightful experiences provided by the service brand (based on the BL paradigm); (9) Service brand commitment: cognitive and affective commitment to the brand (based the BRQ and the RC paradigms); (10) Service brand love: intense affection for the brand metaphorically analogous to the romantic love in interpersonal relationships (based on the BL paradigm); and (11) Service brand loyalty: repurchase intention of the service brand and willingness to recommend it to others (based on the BRQ, RC and BL paradigms).

Strategic RM and service brand marketing 1201

EJM 45,7/8

1202

Figure 1. Strategic management of service brand relationships (conceptual model)

The delineation of the causal path relationships among the constructs explicated in the conceptual model leads to three propositions for further empirical examination: P1. The eight exogenous constructs in the SM-SBR model (satisfaction of utilitarian attributes, satisfaction of affective attributes, brand-switching cost, uniqueness, privilege, trust, self-concept connection and delight) function as eight basic relationship components to lay the relationship foundation.

P2. P3.

Service brand commitment and service brand love in the SM-SBR model mediate the effects of relationship foundation on service brand loyalty. Some of the basic relationship components in the relationship foundation are directly related to service brand loyalty.

Strategic RM and service brand marketing 1203

Large-scale survey Brand selection Consulting the research ndings on services categorization reported by, Tether and Hipp (2002), Freel (2006), Hertog et al. (2006) and Chadwick et al. (2008) among other, the current study identied six categories in which service-providers are comparatively easier to turn into well-establishment brands with extensive consumer base: the nancial, hospitality, fast food, retailing, online shopping, and express delivery category. Then, six service brands in each category were chosen as studied targets: Master Card for the nancial service, Park Hyatt for the hospitality service, McDonalds to the fast food service, Tesco to for the retailing service, Amazon.com for the online shopping service, and DHL for the express delivery service. Data collection Large-scale survey, using the nalized measurement instrumentation developed in the exploratory investigation, was successfully conducted on 2,481 consumers of the six service brands: 416 of Master Card, 391 of Park Hyatt, 432 of McDonalds, 419 of Tesco, 425 of Amazon.com, and 398 of DHL. The participants are distributed in Canada, the USA, Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Hong Kong and Australia. In order to ensure the validity of the collected data, the current study adopted the randomized purposive sampling technique random selection of sampling units within the segment of the population with the most information on the characteristic of research interest (e.g. Bosch and Wildner, 2003; Guarte and Barrios, 2006). The sample selection criterion is identical across regions according to such demographic proles: aged 22-65, males and females evenly split, high school-level education and above, with annual income no less than US$30,000. A questionnaire composed of 38 items was successfully administered on and completed by these respondents. Fully aware of why to participate in the survey, they were asked to ll out the survey questionnaire in the place and at the time individually convenient to them. The collected data were then put to a series of statistical analyses, explicating linear and non-linear relationships among constructs in the SM-SBR conceptual model previously described. First, conrmatory factor analysis did a double check for the validity and reliability of the multi-item scales. After that, the structural equation modeling analysis technique was employed to test the research hypotheses. Conrmatory factor analysis Conrmatory factor analysis (CFA) of LISREL VIII was run on the measurement model, checking the construct reliability, average variance extracted, squared correlation, standardized loadings, and items reliability. As the analysis shown in Table I, after deleting six question items in the scale used for survey, overall t statistics of the measurement model containing 33 manifest indicators for 10 latent constructs are quite acceptable by coming up with the indices of:

EJM 45,7/8
Constructs/items Satisfaction of utilitarian attributes The brand satises my utilitarian needs The brand provides satisfactory expertise The brand solves my concrete problems Satisfaction of affective attributes The brand takes good care of me The brand is attentive to my feeling The brand is responsive to my concerns Brand-switching cost It costs me to switch from the brand to other alternatives The brand is less costly than other alternatives Uniqueness The brand provides unique service The brand is extraordinary in its service Privilege The brand gives me a sense of privilege The brand treats me as a privileged customer I feel privileged with the brand Trust The brand is credible The brand is trustworthy I have condence in the promises the brand makes Self-concept connection The brand reects who I am The brand is congruent with my lifestyle It seems that the brand can speak for me I identify with the image of the brand Delight The brand makes me delighted The brand is delightful The brand elicits pleasures in me Service brand commitment It makes sense to continue using the brand I am committed to my relationships with the brand Staying with the brand gives me emotional gratication Keeping the brand in my life is a reasonable choice Service brand love The brand seems like my romantic partner I associate the brand with romantic affection I am passionate about the brand I may make necessary sacrices to stay with the brand Service brand loyalty (parameter is xed in model estimation) I will surely repurchase the brand I will recommend the brand to others

Construct reliability/variance extracted/squared correlation 0.84/0.73/0.54

Standardized Items loadings reliability 0.91 0.88 0.88 0.87 0.79 0.79 0.87 0.79 0.77 0.78 0.73 0.85 0.76 0.75 0.73 0.71 0.85 0.76 0.74 0.76 0.72 0.76 0.74 0.76 0.74 0.72 0.72 0.79 0.77 0.71 0.83 0.74 0.76 0.72

1204

0.85/0.75/0.57 0.92 0.86 0.82 0.78/0.67/0.51 0.87 0.79 0.82/0.71/0.53 0.94 0.88 0.76/0.56/0.49 0.85 0.81 0.77 0.82/0.71/0.53 0.94 0.88 0.81 0.83/0.72/0.55 0.84 0.81 0.88 0.81 0.83/0.73/0.56 0.87 0.83 0.79 0.87/0.74/0.58 0.79 0.85 0.84 0.81 0.89/0.78/0.61 0.91 0.88 0.86 0.83

Table I. Conrmatory factor analysis of measurement model

x 2 703 721 p , 0:05; GFI 0:954; AGFI 0:938; CFI 0:926; NFI
0:915; and RMSR 0:033: In addition, the lambdas (l) are all above 0.35, the composite reliabilities are greater than 0.7, and the average variance extracted are above 0.5 on the whole. Furthermore, the average variance extracted for each construct is greater than the squared correlation between a particular construct and any other construct. Judging by these results, the researcher conrms both convergent and discriminant validity of the measurement scale. Measurement invariance check To conrm measurement invariance across sample groups of different brands, the researcher assessed three measurement models. Model 1 assumed an invariant factor pattern across the six sample groups, including ten latent factors, and only one non-zero loading for each item (simple structure), this model served as the null model in the model comparison sequence. Model 2 assumed that the factor loadings to be variant across samples. Model 3 assumed that the item intercepts t were variant across samples. All models were estimated by maximum likelihood using LISREL VIII, and only model 1 was found yielding satisfactory Goodness-of-t statistic (0.957), thus conrming measurement invariance across the six sample groups. Analysis of ndings After conrming the t in the measurement model, structural equation modeling (SEM) was run. It estimated the full-mediation structural model (service brand commitment and service brand love fully mediate the effects of eight exogenous constructs on service brand loyalty), the partial-mediation model (relaxing the direct effects of eight exogenous constructs) and the non-mediation model (constraining mediation effects of service brand commitment and service brand love). Both t index statistics and path parameters are estimated and compared in detail, thereby determining which the best-t model is. As exhibited by the statistical analysis, the partial-mediation structural model provides the best t of the data (x2719 735p , 0:05, GFI 0.953, AGFI 0.943, CFI 0.929, NFI 0.916, RMSR 0.041). Besides, in terms of explaining the variance of the outcome construct, the partial-mediation structural model also has greater degree of explanatory power (R 2 0:821) than the full-mediation model (R 2 0:681) and the non-mediation model (R 2 0:537). In general, the structural equation model shown in Figure 2 demonstrates all the propositions that the current study puts forth regarding the conceptual model receive full support. The causal path estimation indicates the best structure and relationships among exogenous, mediating, and endogenous constructs in the Strategic Management of Service Brand Relationships (SM-SBR) empirical model are: . the eight basic relationship components (satisfaction of utilitarian attributes, satisfaction of affective attributes, brand-switching cost, uniqueness, privilege, trust, self-concept connection and delight) function to lay the relationship foundation; . service brand commitment is anteceded by six basic relationship components: satisfaction of utilitarian attributes, satisfaction of affective attributes, brand-switching cost, uniqueness, privilege, trust and self-concept connection;

Strategic RM and service brand marketing 1205

EJM 45,7/8

1206

Figure 2. Strategic management of service brand relationships (empirical model)

. .

service brand love is anteceded by six basic relationship components: satisfaction of affective attributes, uniqueness, privilege, trust, self-concept connection and delight; service brand commitment is positively related to service brand love; service brand commitment and service brand love juxtapose to generate positive impact directly on service brand loyalty; and

amid the eight basic relationship components, there are three components (satisfaction of affective attributes, trust and self-concept connection) exercising direct positive inuence on service brand loyalty.

Strategic RM and service brand marketing 1207

The SM-SBR model developed and validated by the current study applies to a broad range of service brands. It illustrates several noticeable modications and revisions to the three paradigms of consumer-brand relationships. First, the SM-SBR model designates: . eight basic relationship components function as the relationship foundation factor, and . service brand commitment and service brand love as dual-mediators. Most components in the relationship foundation do not exercise direct inuence on service brand loyalty. Second, the dual-mediation model structure of the SM-SBR model indicates that neither relationship commitment nor brand love can exert predominantly determining inuence. It takes the juxtaposing impact of service brand commitment and service brand love as key mediators to generate aggregate impact. The two mediators, transforming the effects of the relationship foundation into brand-loyalty enhancement power, are joint crystallizer for the maximized effectiveness of strategic relationship management. Third, three components in the eight basic relationship components are proven directly related to service brand loyalty; such causal path pattern turns the SM-SBR model into a partial-mediation structure. Conclusion Theoretical contribution The most important theoretical contribution of the current study lies in proffering further support to the views articulated by the previously mentioned Relationship Marketing proponents, who emphasize the necessity to combine economic psychology with social psychology and interpersonal relationship theories, subsuming the notion of consumer-brand relationships into marketing research (e.g. Seijts and Latham, 2003; Swaminathan et al., 2007; Bolton et al., 2008). The SM-SBR model serves to verify this Relationship Marketing premise. To maximize performance of service brand marketing, the rst step is to lay the relationship foundation. It consists of satisfaction of utilitarian attributes, satisfaction of affective attributes, brand-switching cost, uniqueness, privilege, trust, self-concept connection and delight as the basic relationship components. These components are constituted via all sorts of dynamic exchanges and contact points in the sensory, affective, social and intellectual locations and occasions. In other words, consumers perceive their positive relationships with the service brand not merely on the basis of economic transactions. Social exchanges, interpersonal contacts and symbolic meaning to a considerable extent account for building the kind of consumer-brand relationships that foster strong and durable brand loyalty. Also noteworthy, the relationships-building process illustrated by SM-SBR model reects the tenets that the theorists of holistic consumer experience advocate. They emphasize emotional pleasure, cognitive stimulation, psychological growth, self-expressiveness and communal awareness all account for the creation of holistic

EJM 45,7/8

1208

consumer experience (e.g. Dube and Le Bel, 2003; Schmitt, 2003; Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004; Tsai, 2005a, b, 2006; Brown, 2007; Tsai, 2009). According to the SM-SBR model, the relationship foundation exactly embodies the main characteristics of holistic experience. In other words, to lay the solid foundation of positive relationships a seamless integration of pragmatic utilitarianism, emotionalism and social symbolism is indispensible. Pragmatic utilitarianism stresses the objective attributes of products; emotionalism accentuates the aspects of emotional arousal and attachment to products; social symbolism emphasizes the shared personalities and symbolic meaning of products. Generally, the SM-SBR model features an integrative reconguration of the model structures put forth by the BQR Model (non-mediation: all the relationship components correlate to constitute a single construct of brand relationship quality, which culminates in brand loyalty), the RC Model (partial-mediation: relationship components are partially mediated by brand commitment) and the BL Model (full-mediation: relationship components are fully mediated by brand love). The multiple dimensions of relationship components in the relationship foundation are not found functioning as a single factor conceptualized by the original BRQ framework. Instead, an interrelated hierarchical process characterizes how these dimensions generate impact on service brand loyalty. Besides, the six-component-one-factor solution in the framework is revised into the ten-component-three-factor solution. The result resonates with the thoughts of Park et al. (2002), Chang and Chieng (2006) and Smit et al. (2007), who treat brand relationship quality as formative instead of substantive construct; the relationship components do not correlate to constitute a second-order factor of brand relationship quality, they exercise multidimensional inuences. As the SM-SBR model shows, in the context of service brand marketing the eight basic relationship components in the relationship foundation impact on brand loyalty largely through the mediation of service brand commitment and service brand love. That is, it is appropriate to regard the model structure of the original BRQ framework as useful for laying a solid foundation to foster service brand loyalty. This framework has to incorporate into the model structures of the Relationship Commitment and the Brand Love paradigms, thus establishing the SM-SBR model that brings the effects of consumer-brand relationships to full play. Managerial implications From the SM-SBR model, the service brand marketer may clearly see strategic management of consumer-brand relationships starts from attending to the basic relationship components of the relationship foundation: the utilitarian (satisfaction of utilitarian attributes and brand-switching cost), emotional (satisfaction of affective attributes, uniqueness, privilege, trust and delight) and symbolic (self-concept connection) dimensions. The next step focuses more on the pursuit of solidifying service brand commitment and fostering service brand love, which function as the key mediators in the whole process of strategic relationship management. Noticeably, satisfaction of affective attributes and trust in the emotional dimension as well as self-concept connection in the symbolic dimension explicated by the SM-SBR model are proven the only basic relationship components that directly inuence service brand loyalty. This exhibits the importance of emotionality and symbolism in the context of service brand marketing. Extant research also reports ndings supplying

similar evidence (e.g. Mattila and Enz, 2002; Dallimore et al., 2007; Han and Back, 2008). Therefore, particular attention should be paid to these two dimensions for building positive service brand relationships. In the two mediators of the SM-SBR model, service brand love has greater impact on service brand loyalty. It accounts for 29 per cent of the variance in service brand loyalty, comparing to 23 per cent explained by service brand commitment. However, it has to bear in mind that service brand commitment is both a juxtaposing construct with and an anteceding construct of service brand love. The delineation points to service brand commitment serving to pave the way for service brand love (accounting for 21 per cent of its variance). Social psychologists including Grote and Frieze (1998), Fletcher et al. (2000), Arriaga and Agnew (2001) and Ramirez (2008) posit, intense romantic love is not temporary infatuation that comes and goes quickly. Such love stands the test of time. To foster intense romantic love, rm relationship commitment should exist as its basis. Thus, the service brand marketer can deem service brand love as a stronger predictor of brand loyalty but, in the meantime, deem brand commitment as a precursor for brand love. Overall, specic indicators for each latent construct as well as the causal path pattern explicated by the SM-SBR model may help the service brand marketer to set up an evaluation mechanism, monitoring the general performance of positive-relationships building efforts. The researcher would like to call for recognition of the power that consumer-brand relationships may generate in the context of service brand marketing. Strategic management of such relationships characterizes an interrelated hierarchical process starting from laying the relationship foundation. Then the service brand marketer is advised to move on to augmenting brand commitment and fostering brand love, which exercise impact as the key mediators in the whole process of relationship building. Limitations and future research directions The cross-regional samples used by the current study help to elevate the validity and reliability of research ndings. However, the collected data still restrict to highly developed countries, thus the consumers in comparatively less afuent regions are not covered. Future research may move on to examine whether the customers in less afuent societies perceive their consumer-brand relationships with the service brand differently from those in Canada, the USA, Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Hong Kong and Australia. Consumer psychologists, including Weiss (2001) and Myers and Kent (2003), discover lifestyles in afuent and non-afuent societies can be very dissimilar. It would be worthwhile to test if the delineation of the causal pathways among the constructs in the SM-SBR model varies due to changes in afuence of the markets. The SM-SBR model is illustrative of the requirement to build consumer-brand relationships in a way that characterizes synergy and coalescence in strategic planning and implementation. Service brand marketing scholars also accentuate the importance to transcend departmental boundaries in order to concert different functions to pursue holistic effectiveness of relationship management (e.g. Seijts and Latham, 2003; Swaminathan et al., 2007; Bolton et al., 2008). For future research, exploration can be conducted on the specic avenues that may facilitate the service-providing organization to achieve synergy and concerted efforts in the strategic management

Strategic RM and service brand marketing 1209

EJM 45,7/8

of service brand relationships. The interested researchers may try to investigate the best possible business model in which the service-providing organization is capable of synchronizing inter-departmental and cross-functional actions, which eventually lead to positive relationships for maximizing marketing performance of the service brand.
References Ahuvia, A.C. (2005), Beyond the extended self: loved objects and consumers identity narratives, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 171-84. Albert, N., Merunka, D. and Valette-Florence, P. (2008), When consumers love their brands: exploring the concept and its dimensions, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 61 No. 11, pp. 1062-75. Arriaga, X.B. and Agnew, C.R. (2001), Being committed: affective, cognitive, and conative components of relationship commitment, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 27 No. 9, pp. 1190-203. Bolton, R.N., Lemon, K.N. and Verhoef, P.C. (2008), Expanding business-to-business relationships: modeling the customers upgrade decision, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 72 No. 1, pp. 46-64. Bosch, V. and Wildner, R. (2003), Optimum allocation of stratied random samples designed for multiple mean estimates and multiple observed variables, Communications in Statistics: Theory & Methods, Vol. 32 No. 10, pp. 1897-909. Bowen, J. (1990), Development of a taxonomy of services to gain strategic marketing insights, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 43-9. Breivik, E. and Thorbjrnsen, H. (2008), Consumer brand relationships: an investigation of two alternative models, Journal of the Academy Marketing Science, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 443-72. Brown, S. (2007), Are we nearly there yet? On the retro-dominant logic of marketing, Marketing Theory, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 291-300. Carlson, B.D., Donavan, D.T. and Cumiskey, K.J. (2009), Consumer-brand relationships in sport: brand personality and identication, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 370-84. Carroll, B. and Ahuvia, A. (2006), Some antecedents and outcomes of brand love, Marketing Letters, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 79-89. Chadwick, A., Glasson, J. and Lawton Smith, H. (2008), Employment growth in knowledge-intensive business services in Great Britain during the 1990s: variations at the regional and sub-regional level, Local Economy, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 6-18. Chang, P.L. and Chieng, M.H. (2006), Building consumer-brand relationship: a cross-cultural experiential view, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 11, pp. 927-59. Dallimore, K.S., Sparks, B.A. and Butcher, K. (2007), The inuence of angry customer outbursts on service providers facial displays and affective states, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 78-92. DallOlmo Riley, F. and de Chernatony, L. (2000), The service brand as relationship builder, British Journal of Management, Vol. 11 No. 20, pp. 137-50. Dube, L. and Le Bel, J. (2003), The categorical structure of pleasure, Cognition and Emotion, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 263-97. Dwyer, R.F., Schurr, P.H. and Oh, S. (1987), Developing buyer-seller relationships, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 11-27. Ekinci, Y., Yoon, T. and Oppewal, H. (2004), An examination of the brand relationship quality scale in the evaluation of restaurant brands, Advances in Hospitality and Leisure, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 195-203.

1210

Fedorikhin, A., Park, C.W. and Thomson, M. (2008), Beyond t and attitude: the effect of emotional attachment on consumer responses to brand extensions, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 281-91. Fletcher, G.J.O., Simpson, J.A. and Thomas, G. (2000), The measurement of perceived relationship quality components: a conrmatory factor-analytic approach, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 340-58. Fournier, S. (1998), Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in consumer research, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 343-73. Freel, M. (2006), Patterns of technological innovation in knowledge-intensive business services, Industry and Innovation, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 335-58. Fullerton, G. (2005), The impact of brand commitment on loyalty to retail service brands, Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 97-110. Geyer, P.D., Dotson, M. and King, R.H. (1991), Predicting brand commitment: an empirical test of Rusbults investment model, The Mid-Atlantic Journal of Business, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 129-37. Grote, N.K. and Frieze, I.H. (1998), Characteristics and consequences of expectation violations in close relationships, Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 91-109. Guarte, J.M. and Barrios, E.B. (2006), Estimation under purposive sampling, Communications in Statistics Simulation and Computation, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 277-84. Gustafsson, A., Johnson, M.D. and Roos, I. (2005), The effects of customer satisfaction, relationship commitment dimensions, and triggers on customer retention, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 69 No. 4, pp. 210-18. Han, H. and Back, K.J. (2008), Relationships among image congruence, consumption emotions, and customer loyalty in the lodging industry, Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 467-90. Heide, J.B. and Stump, R.L. (1995), Performance implications of buyer-supplier relationships in industrial markets, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 57-66. Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K.P. and Gremler, D.D. (2002), Understanding relationship marketing outcomes: an integration of relational benets and relationship quality, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 230-47. Hertog, P.D., Bouwman, H., Gallego, J., Green, L., Howells, J., Meiren, T., Miles, I., Moerschel, I., Narbona, A., Rubalcaba, L., Segers, J. and Tether, B. (2006), Research and Development Needs of Business-Related Service Firms. Dialogic, Fraunhofer IAO, PREST, Servilab, Utrecht. Hess, J. and Story, J. (2005), Trust-based commitment: multi-dimensional consumer-brand relationships, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 313-22. Hess, J. and Story, J. (2006), Segmenting customer-brand relations: beyond the personal relationship metaphor, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 7, pp. 406-13. Kaltcheva, V. and Barton, W. (1999), The effects of brandconsumer relationships on consumers attributions and reactions, in Arnould, E.J. and Scott, L.M. (Eds), Advances in Consumer Research, Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 455-62. Kressmann, F., Sirgy, M.J., Herrmann, A., Huber, F., Huber, S. and Lee, D.J. (2006), Direct and indirect effects of self-image congruence on brand loyalty, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 59 No. 9, pp. 955-64. Laroche, K.D. (2007), Building a strong services brand: lessons from Mayo Clinic, Business Horizons, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 199-209. Li, X. and Petrick, J.F. (2008), Examining the antecedents of brand loyalty from an investment model perspective, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 25-34.

Strategic RM and service brand marketing 1211

EJM 45,7/8

1212

Lovelock, C.H. and Gummesson, E. (2004), Whither services marketing? In search of a new paradigm and fresh perspectives, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 20-41. Mattila, A.S. and Enz, C.A. (2002), The role of emotions in service encounters, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 268-77. Morgan, R.M. and Hunt, S.D. (1994), The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 20-38. Myers, N. and Kent, J. (2003), New consumers: the inuence of afuence on the environment, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences US, Vol. 100 No. 8, pp. 4963-8. Nysveen, H., Pedersen, P.E., Thorbjrnsen, H. and Berthon, P. (2005), Mobilizing the brand: the effects of mobile services on brand relationships and main channel use, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 253-76. OLoughlin, D. and Szmigin, I. (2008), The challenge of sustaining the relationship approach: nancial supplier perspectives, Australasia Marketing Journal, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 35-48. Park, C.W., MacInnis, D.J. and Priester, J. (2009), Brand Attachment: Construct, Consequences and Causes, Now Publishers, Boston, MA. Park, J.W., Kim, K.H. and Kim, J.K. (2002), Acceptance of brand extensions: interactive inuences of product category similarity, typicality of claimed benets, and brand relationship quality, in Broniarczyk, S.M. and Nakamoto, K. (Eds), Advances in Consumer Research, Association for Consumer Research, Valdosta, GA. Prahalad, C.K. and Ramaswamy, V. (2004), The Future of Competition: Co-Creating Unique Value with Customers, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. Ramirez, A. Jr (2008), Examination of the tripartite approach to commitment: an actor-partner interdependence model analysis of the effect of relational maintenance behavior, Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 943-65. Roberts, K. (2004), Lovemarks: The Future beyond Brands, Power House Books, New York, NY. Sanchez-Franco, M.J., Ramos, A.F.V. and Velicia, F.A.M. (2009), The moderating effect of gender on relationship quality and loyalty toward internet service providers, Information & Management, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 196-202. Schmitt, B. (2003), Customer Experience Management, The Free Press, New York, NY. Seijts, G.H. and Latham, B. (2003), Creativity through applying ideas from elds other than ones own: transferring knowledge from social psychology to industrial/organizational psychology, Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 232-9. Sheth, J.N. and Parvatiyar, A. (1995), Relationship marketing in consumer markets: antecedents and consequences, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 255-71. Smit, E., Bronner, F. and Tolboom, M. (2007), Brand relationship quality and its value for personal contact, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 60 No. 6, pp. 627-33. Sung, Y. and Campbell, K.W. (2007), Brand commitment in consumer-brand relationships: an investment model approach, Journal of Brand Management, pp. 1-17. rhan-Canlie, Z. (2007), My brand or your brand? The Swaminathan, V., Page, K.L. and Gu effects of brand relationship dimensions and self-construal on brand evaluations, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 248-59. Sweeney, J.C. and Chew, M. (2000), Consumer-brand relationships: an exploratory study in the services context, ANZMAC 2000 Visionary Marketing for the Twenty-rst Century: Facing the Challenge, pp. 1234-8. Tether, B.S. and Hipp, C. (2002), Knowledge-intensive, technical and other services: patterns of competitiveness and innovation compared, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 163-82.

Thomson, M., MacInnis, D.J. and Park, C.W. (2005), The ties that bind: measuring the strength of consumers emotional attachments to brands, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 77-91. Thorbjrnsen, H., Supphellen, M., Nysveen, H. and Pedersen, P.E. (2002), Building brand relationships online: a comparison of two interactive applications, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 17-33. Tsai, S.P. (2005a), Integrated marketing as management of holistic consumer experience, Business Horizons, Vol. 48 No. 5, pp. 431-41. Tsai, S.P. (2005b), Utility, cultural symbolism and emotion: a comprehensive model of brand purchase value, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 277-91. Tsai, S.P. (2006), Investigating archetype-icon transformation in brand marketing, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 648-63. Tsai, S.P. (2009), Shopping-mall management & entertainment experience: a cross-regional investigation, Service Industries Journal, pp. 1-17. Van Goolen, R. and Franc ois, P. (2007), Estimating the impact of loyalty drivers for transactional and relational customers, Proceedings of the 4th Research Conference on Relationship Marketing and CRM, European Institute for Advanced Studies in Management (EIASM), Brussels. Weiss, M.J. (2001), The Clustered World: How We Live, What We Buy, and What It All Means about Who We Are, Little Brown, New York, NY. Whang, Y.O., Allen, J., Sahoury, N. and Zhang, H. (2004), Falling in love with a product: the structure of a romantic consumer-product relationship, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 320-7. Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A. and Berry, L.L. (1985), Problems and strategies in services marketing, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 33-46. Zhang, J. and Bloemer, J.M.M. (2008), The impact of value congruence on consumer-service brand relationships, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 161-78. Further reading De Chernatony, L. (2000), A model for strategically building brands, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 32-4. Verhoef, P.C. (2003), Understanding the effect of customer relationship management efforts on customer retention and customer share development, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 67 No. 4, pp. 30-45. Corresponding author Shu-pei Tsai can be contacted at: tsaisp@cc.shu.edu.tw

Strategic RM and service brand marketing 1213

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints