See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/263592295

Romantic brand love: A conceptual analysis

Article  in  The Marketing Review · April 2013

DOI: 10.1362/146934713X13590250137709

CITATIONS READS

26 3,530

1 author:

Abhigyan Sarkar
Institute of Management Technology
56 PUBLICATIONS   1,191 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Exploring the Rise of Fandom in Contemporary Consumer Culture View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Abhigyan Sarkar on 10 December 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 the marketing review

Romantic brand love: A conceptual analysis

Abhigyan Sarkar, IBS-Hyderabad, India*

Much research has been conducted on brand loyalty and satisfaction. Recently
consumer behaviour research has focused on investigating an individual’s
emotional connection with a brand. As a result of this a new stream of consumer
research, brand love, has been developed. Brand love is an emerging concept
in the field of consumer psychology. This article attempts to investigate a
unique facet of brand love called romantic brand love. The article shows that
romantic brand love is experienced by an individual and leads to behavioural
loyalty. Romantic brand love refers to romantic relationships between consumers
and brands. This article conceptualises the structure of the romantic brand love
concept. Romantic brand love influences marketing outcomes such as switching
AUTHOR COPY

and loyalty. Romantic brand love is stimulated by romantic advertisement themes,

product and brand symbolism. Several propositions are developed relating to
the explicit structure of romantic brand love, its antecedents and outcomes.
Theoretical and managerial implications are discussed.

Keywords Romantic brand love, Brand loyalty, Subjective personal introspection,

Product symbolism, Brand symbolism

Introduction

Consumers interact with numerous brands in their lives; however they develop
intense emotional attachment to very few of them (Schouten & McAlexander,
1995). Although for several years buyer behaviour researchers have studied
consumers’ likes-dislikes in relation to brands, in the recent past consumer
psychology research has shown growing interest in consumers’ love for various
brands (Batra, Ahuvia & Bagozzi, 2012; Roy, Eshghi & Sarkar, 2012). Prior
research states that the structure of individual’s emotional feelings for any
consumption object is analogous to the structure of an individual’s emotional
feelings for another individual or loved one (Shimp & Madden, 1988). This
understanding has motivated a group of researchers to critically reinvestigate

*Correspondence details and a biography for the author are located at the end of the article.

The Marketing Review, 2013, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 23-37

http://dx.doi.org/10.1362/146934713X13590250137709
ISSN1469-347X print / ISSN 1472-1384 online ©Westburn Publishers Ltd.
 24 The Marketing Review, 2013, Vol. 13, No. 1

this aspect of consumer-brand psychological relationships (Albert, Merunka

& Valette-Florence, 2008; Brakus, Schmitt & Zarantonello, 2009; Carroll &
Ahuvia, 2006; Keh, Pang & Peng, 2007; Thomson, MacInnis & Park, 2005).
Dichter (1947, 1964) states that individuals make brand purchases because
of some emotional factors deeply rooted in their psyche. Holbrook and
Hirschman (1982a, 1982b) define hedonic or experiential consumption as
emotive arousals taking place within an individual while consuming, which
leads to fun and fantasy. The present research is an endeavour to contribute
to this body of knowledge by conceptualising a romantic love relationship
between an individual and a brand.
The present article attempts to i) conceptualise a romantic consumer-
brand relationship and ii) develop several propositions relating to it. At its
basis, the conceptualisation of romantic brand love refers to the emotional
aspect (Schiffman, Kanuk & Kumar, 2010, p. 429) of an individual’s buying
process in which the individual tends to associate deep emotional feelings
with brand purchase. Identification of the factors contributing to brand
romance would be especially helpful in marketing strategy formulation to
foster long-term consumer-brand relationships. The paper also highlights
how romantic brand love is related to brand loyalty. Conceptualisation of
romantic brand love has been developed based on reviewing prior literature
on interpersonal love and attachment, as these prior researches suggest
that consumer-brand psychological relationships are structurally analogous
AUTHOR COPY

to interpersonal psychological relationships (Albert et al., 2008; Batra et al,

2012; Bergkvist & Bech-Larsen, 2010; Brakus et al., 2009; Carroll & Ahuvia,
2006; Keh et al., 2007; Shimp & Madden, 1988; Thomson et al., 2005;
Whang, Allen, Sahoury & Zhang, 2004).

Critical review of interpersonal love literature

The majority of the older and contemporary researches on interpersonal

love postulate that love is a multidimensional concept (Hendrick & Hendrick,
1986, 1989; Lee, 1977; Sternberg, 1986, 1997; Thomson, 1939; Thurstone,
1938). Hendrick and Hendrick (1989) conducted factor analysis of various
existing interpersonal love scales and found five underlying dimensions. The
authors labelled the dimensions as: passionate love, closeness, manic love,
attachment, and practical or logical love. Passion and closeness factors defined
significantly larger variance compared to other three factors. Therefore,
passion and closeness are considered to be the core components of love.
Based on the findings the authors concluded that “…love is multidimensional
or multicomponential…” (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1989, p. 792).
Sternberg (1986) proposed the triangular theory of love based on
reviewing a large volume of literature on interpersonal love and attachment.
According to this theory, any interpersonal love relationship between
two partners consists of three correlated components - intimacy, passion
and decision/commitment. Intimacy refers to the feelings of closeness
or connectedness or bondedness and is derived mainly from affection or
emotion. Passion is derived largely from motivation which gives rise to different
forms of physiological and psychological arousal. Decision/commitment is
mainly derived from cognition. Decision implies the recognition of the loving
 Sarkar Romantic brand love 25

relationship by the partners in the short-term and commitment refers to

the willingness to maintain the loving relationship for a long time in the
future. Decision and commitment come together, as without a decision the
long-term intention to be committed would not be realised. “Most often,
however, decision will precede commitment both temporally and logically”
(Sternberg, 1986, p. 123). According to the author it is not necessary that all
three components must be present in order for love to exist and the nature
of the interpersonal love is romantic when only intimacy and passion are
present, but decision/commitment is absent. It has already been stated that
after doing the factor analysis of several original measures of love, Hendrick
and Hendrick (1989) obtained two important components of love explaining
larger variances: passion and closeness. Sternberg (1986) defined intimacy
as the feelings of closeness. Following Sternberg (1986, 1997), and Hendrick
and Hendrick (1989), romantic brand love is conceptualised as the dominant
facet of love.
Triangular theory is considered most robust, as Sternberg (1997)
developed valid and reliable scales to measure all three love components
after considering several types of possible love relationships, for example,
love for parents, love for siblings, love for a lover of opposite sex/spouse, love
for a friend of same sex, love for an ideal lover. This theory therefore scores
highly in terms of generalisability and the present analysis mainly relies on
this theory. The above literature review indicates two important aspects of
AUTHOR COPY

love. First, love is a multidimensional concept. Second, romanticism is the

core of any love feeling.

Critical review of brand love literature

An individual can experience love for a consumption object or a brand which

is as emotional and passionate as interpersonal love (Albert et al., 2008;
Batra et al., 2012; Bergkvist & Bech-Larsen, 2010; Carroll & Ahuvia, 2006;
Keh et al., 2007; Shimp & Madden, 1988; Thomson et al., 2005; Whang
et al., 2004). Examples of this feeling might include a deep desire to learn
to play a piano, fantasising about buying a sports car, a child’s excitement
over the possibility of getting a toy, dreaming about buying a new flat and
many more (Shimp & Madden, 1988). Carroll and Ahuvia (2006) developed
a scale to measure an individual’s love for a brand. It is surprising however
that the scale is unidimensional, whereas the majority of the prior love
researches state that interpersonal love (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986, 1989;
Lee, 1977; Sternberg, 1986, 1997; Thomson, 1939; Thurstone, 1938) and
consumer-brand love (Batra et al., 2012; Shimp & Madden, 1988; Whang et
al., 2004) are both multi-dimensional. However, Carroll and Ahuvia (2006)
defined love as the feelings of emotion and passion for any trade name.
This definition indicates romantic brand love, as the presence of emotion
(intimacy) and passion characterise romantic love (Sternberg, 1986). This
brand love is hedonic in nature, rather than being purely commercial, as
product hedonism is an important predictor of brand love (Carroll & Ahuvia,
2006). However, the following analysis will show that hedonic brand love is
not totally altruistic and to some extent based on commercial value judgment
or rational evaluation.
 26 The Marketing Review, 2013, Vol. 13, No. 1

Whang et al. (2004), in their study of bike owners in the USA, revealed
that Lee’s (1977) interpersonal love dimensions are applicable in the context
of a consumer-brand relationship. This study shows that eros (passionate
love), a mix of mania (emotionally intense) and agape (altruistic love) are
dominant in the context of the bikers’ love for their bikes. Thomson et al.
(2005) developed the emotional brand attachment scale. Their emotional
brand attachment construct has three sub-dimensions: affection, passion
and connection. However, this scale also suffers from some conceptual issues.
First, according to Sternberg’s triangular theory of love (1986), passion is
not derived from emotion, but derived from motivation. So, passion is not
expected to be a dimension of emotional brand attachment. Thomson et al.
(2005) developed the scale based on the theory of attachment. This theory
states that attachment is a behavioural system evolving behaviours that
function to maintain proximity with an attachment figure from whom the
attachment seeker perceives to get protection and care (Hazan & Shaver,
1994). Though attachment theory (Hazan & Shaver, 1994) states that various
emotional feelings trigger attachment seeking behaviour, it does not specify
any exclusive sub-sets or factors consisting of the whole set of emotions.
Thomson et al. (2005) stated that their study followed Churchill’s (1979)
methodology. Churchill’s (1979) methodology suggested defining the
domains of the construct based on prior theories before developing items
to reflect the specific domains. Thomson et al. (2005) developed the pool of
AUTHOR COPY

items, did factor analysis and named the factors based on the nature of items
loaded highly on the factors. Hence, Thomson et al. (2005) did not strictly
follow Churchill’s (1979) methodology.
Brakus et al. (2009) developed a scale to measure brand experience.
However, the scale does not include any component called brand-passion,
whereas, prior literature states that passion or arousal is one important
dimension of brand stimuli experiences (Batra et al., 2012; Shimp & Madden,
1988; Thomson et al., 2005). Keh et al. (2007) and Albert et al. (2008) tried
to develop scales to measure brand love. Details of the reliability and validity
tests of these studies are not available.
Bergkvist and Bech-Larsen (2010) also operationalised brand love as
a unidimensional construct which is conceptually not appropriate, as the
majority of old and recent love research states that interpersonal love
(Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986, 1989; Lee, 1977; Sternberg, 1986, 1997;
Thomson, 1939; Thurstone, 1938) and consumer-brand love (Batra et
al., 2012; Shimp & Madden, 1988; Whang et al., 2004) are both multi-
dimensional. The authors used two items to measure brand love - “would you
miss <Brand> if it was no longer available”, and “do you feel deep affection,
like ‘love’, for <Brand>?” (Bergkvist & Bech-Larsen, 2010, p. 510). The first
item represents separation distress and the second item represents affection.
Affection and separation distress both are multi-item constructs (Hazan &
Shaver, 1994; Hazan & Zeifman, 1999; Thomson et al., 2005) and it is not
appropriate to measure any of them with a single item. The scale could have
included other obvious facets of love, like passion (Shimp & Madden, 1988;
Sternberg, 1986, 1997).
Albert and Valette-Florence’s (2010) study identified two dimensions of
brand love: brand affection and brand passion, and developed a measurement
scale. In this scale, the affection sub-scale includes items measuring intimacy,
 Sarkar Romantic brand love 27

liking and passion. The conceptual issue with this scale is that passion is not
a component of affection (Sternberg, 1986); intimacy and passion being
different components of love (Sternberg, 1986) should not indicate the same
factor.
Batra et al. (2012) identified multiple dimensions of brand love: passion-
driven behaviours, self-brand integration, positive emotional connection,
long-term relationship, anticipated separation distress, overall attitude
valence and attitude strength. Passion-driven behaviours and positive
emotional connection (intimacy) together refer to romantic brand love.
Romantic brand love here is a facet of overall brand love. The triangular
theory of love states that other than intimacy and passion, love might
include commitment or intention to maintain the loving relationship for
the long-term future (Sternberg, 1986). Though Sternberg (1986) defines
commitment as a cognitive element, it is more logical to view commitment
as a conative or motivational element which is the outcome of cognition and
affect (Oliver, 1999). Batra et al. (2012) included long-term relationship with
the brand as a component of brand love and defines it as the willingness to
use the brand for a long time to come which also represents conative loyalty
as defined by Oliver (1999).
Batra et al. (2012) also considered emotional attachment and separation
distress both as the dimensions of brand love. Thomson et al. (2005) showed
that separation distress is an outcome of emotional brand attachment.
AUTHOR COPY

According to Batra et al. (2012) emotional attachment is a dimension of

positive emotional connection. However, Thomson et al. in their (2005) study
showed that emotional connection is a dimension of emotional attachment.
These contradictions need to be clarified.
According to Shimp and Madden (1988), the relationship between
a consumer and a brand tends to be analogous to Sternberg’s (1986)
tripartite conceptualisation of interpersonal love. Shimp and Madden
(1988) conceptualise the consumer-brand relationship as consisting of
liking, yearning and decision/commitment components which are exactly
analogous to the intimacy, passion and decision/commitment components
of interpersonal love respectively as defined by Sternberg (1986, 1997).
Shimp and Madden (1988) also state that all three components might not
always be present in a consumer-brand relationship and propose eight kinds
of consumer-brand relationships based on the presence or absence of one or
more components. According to these authors the only difference between
interpersonal and brand love is that the brand love is unidirectional, whereas
interpersonal love is bidirectional. A brand being an inanimate object cannot
love its consumer. Present analysis contradicts this view. In many cases, brand
love is bidirectional. A company or a brand is not completely inanimate and is
represented by its employees. Brand love is reciprocated in highly empathetic
and caring behaviour of company executives.
The major limitation of Shimp and Madden (1988) and Sternberg’s
(1986, 1997) theorizations is that these theories do not specify any sequence
of mental processes indicating which component should follow what in terms
of occurrence. However, Oliver (1999) proposes that individual’s mental
bonding with a brand follows a phase-wise sequential order of cognition,
affection, conation and action and this view is more acceptable. It is also
argued that the intention to be committed is a conative element (Oliver,
 28 The Marketing Review, 2013, Vol. 13, No. 1

1999) rather than being cognitive (Shimp & Madden, 1988; Sternberg,
1986).
The above literature review shows that sufficient confusion remains
regarding the explicit theoretical structure of the brand love concept.
According to Churchill (1979), a marketing concept is not acceptable in
the realm of marketing theory until it has a sound theoretical grounding.
Therefore, there is an evident need to develop a concept in this field with
such strong theoretical grounding.

Romantic brand love and brand loyalty

In this section the discussion is around understanding Oliver’s (1999)

propositions regarding phase-wise brand loyalty development and its
relationship with romantic brand love. Oliver (1999) mentioned sequential
phases of progression towards final action loyalty: cognitive, affective,
conative and action (behavioural) loyalty. The progression follows the given
order. Cognitive loyalty refers to the first stage of loyalty development where
the individual processes alternative brand attribute information obtained
from various sources and preferences for particular brands are developed
based on this information processing. If the cognitive preferences are
sustained over time, it leads to affective loyalty. Affective loyalty refers to
AUTHOR COPY

emotional liking for the brand. If the affective loyalty or liking is sustained for
a sufficient time period, it leads to conative loyalty. Conative loyalty reflects
deeply held motivation or desire to rebuy, but the rebuying is unrealised in
action. Conative loyalty leads to behavioural loyalty if various obstacles that
cause brand switching are removed.
Romantic love consists of intimacy and passion (Sternberg, 1986).
According to Sternberg (1986) and Shimp and Madden (1988) intimacy is
the feeling of liking and passion is a motivational component. According
to Shimp and Madden (1988) intimacy (liking) and passion (yearning) for
a brand together represent desire for the brand, which might not lead
to actual repeat purchase due to some situational constraints like family
pressure or peer pressure. Therefore, Oliver’s (1999) affective and conative
loyalty is respectively analogous to intimacy (liking) and passion (yearning)
components of romantic brand love. In other words, Oliver’s (1999) affective
and conative loyalty stages together indicate romantic brand love. Though
Sarkar (2011) states that romantic brand love leads to conative loyalty, it is
counter argued that conative loyalty is a component of romantic brand love
rather than being an outcome of it. Based on the inhibited desire concept
proposed by Shimp and Madden (1988) romantic brand love is also termed
as brand desire. Based on above discussion, Oliver’s (1999) step-wise loyalty
phases are re-explained as brand cognition or cognitive loyalty, romantic
brand love and behavioural loyalty in that given order. So, brand cognition
predicts romantic brand love and romantic brand love in turn predicts
behavioural loyalty.
It is also important to understand the nature of brand cognition. Oliver’s
(1999) description suggests that cognitive loyalty or brand cognition involves
the mental processing of alternative brand attribute information obtained
based on prior knowledge or experience. Holbrook and Hirschman (1982a)
 Sarkar Romantic brand love 29

state that conscious cognition forms the substance of conscious thought

patterns and controls rational information processing. Oliver’s (1999)
conceptualisation of cognition refers to the concept of rational or conscious
cognition described by Holbrook and Hirschman (1982a), as Oliver (1999)
differentiated cognition from affect. In the present analysis brand cognition
refers to this conscious cognition.
So, conscious cognitive information processing is rational in nature
and instigates utilitarian buying which regards “the consumer as a logical
thinker” (Holbrook & Hirschman, 1982a, p. 132). Boden and Williams (2002)
described the theory of “commodified emotions” (Boden & Williams, 2002,
p. 498) which states that our emotion is channelled or managed under
the guidance of our rationality. For example, I love my wife, because she is
my wife. According to this theory, behind every emotion there is a reason.
So, it is argued that brand cognition manages or channels romantic brand
love towards final action loyalty. Behind any brand purchase there must
be cognitive logic and without any cognitive base brand romance would
not arise. For example, I am a smoker. I romantically love Marlboro brand
because of my favourable evaluative judgment of its flavour and taste.

In summary, romantic brand love or brand desire consists of affect or

intimacy towards the brand and passion for the brand.
AUTHOR COPY

How this desire is playing an active role in the world of consumption, we

can view in a conceptual paper “Desire awakens, seizes, teases, titillates, and
arouses. We battle, resist, and struggle with, or succumb, surrender to, and
indulge our desires” (Belk, Ger, & Askegaard, 2000, p. 99).

In summary, brand cognition influences or manages romantic brand love.

Understanding the characteristic nature of intimacy and passion -

the dimensions of brand desire or romantic brand love

The objective of the following discussion is to understand the core

characteristics of intimacy and passion and how they are analogous in the
context of consumer-brand and interpersonal relationships.

Intimacy
Intimacy is a mental process involving the sharing of personal emotional
feelings and information (Clark & Reis, 1988; Reis & Shaver, 1988). These
studies focused more on self-disclosure as a key characteristic of intimacy.
However, in order to be intimate, this disclosure of information must generate
some positive feelings about each other (Reis & Patrick, 1996). Intimacy is
largely derived from the emotional investment in any loving relationship
which leads to the feeling of closeness (Sternberg, 1986). According to
Baumeister and Bratslavsky (1999), intimacy includes mutual disclosure of
personal information, a strong favourable attitude towards the other person
and the communication of affection. As a whole, intimacy is characterised by
positive emotional feelings of closeness.
 30 The Marketing Review, 2013, Vol. 13, No. 1

The feeling of intimacy takes the form of liking in the context of a

consumer-brand relationship (Shimp & Madden, 1988). Brand intimacy also
refers to the feelings of closeness, harmonisation and willingness to keep in
touch with the brand (Keh et al., 2007).

Passion
Passion is a function of the first derivative of intimacy over time (Baumeister
& Bratslavsky, 1999). This implies that passion exists only when the intimacy
level changes over time. Sternberg (1986) states that passion is largely
derived from the motivational involvement of the partners. The author also
states that passion and intimacy are conceptually different; they are highly
and reciprocally interactive.
Arousal is the prime manifestation of passion (Baumeister & Bratslavsky,
1999; Hatfield & Sprecher 1986; Hatfield & Walster, 1978; Sternberg,
1986). Arousal seeking tendency is an ‘individual difference’ construct
(Mehrabian & Russell, 1974). Arousal refers to various forms of physiological
and psychological states of excitement caused by passionate feelings;
physiological and psychological arousals are so strongly correlated that it is
very difficult to separate them (Sternberg, 1986).
An individual can have passion-like or arousal feelings for brands (Carroll
& Ahuvia, 2006; Keh et al., 2007; Shimp & Madden, 1988; Thomson et al.,
AUTHOR COPY

2005). “The deep desire to learn to play the piano, the fantasy to own a
special sports car, and the intense excitement over the prospects of getting a
new toy for Christmas or of building one’s dream home” (Shimp & Madden,
1988, p. 164) represents an extreme form of passion or arousal feeling for
brands.

Actionable antecedents of romantic brand love

The objective of the following discussion is to identify possible predictors

of romantic brand love. Romantic love is emotive and irrational even in
consumption contexts (Campbell, 1987). Individuals make irrational brand
purchases after perceiving symbolic benefits (Holbrook & Hirschman,
1982a). Brand symbolism refers to the subjective meanings appropriated
from a brand (Escalas & Bettman, 2005). In a brand purchase context
symbolic benefits are perceived at varying levels (Holbrook & Hirschman,
1982a) and after perceiving the symbolic benefits the consumers’ response
takes the form of ‘emotional arousal’ (Holbrook & Hirschman, 1982b, p. 93)
which represents romantic brand love. However, Holbrook and Hirschman
(1982a, 1982b) did not make any distinction between emotion and arousal.
Sternberg (1986) states that emotion, and passion or arousal, are different
concepts and the present analysis advocates this notion, as Sternberg
(1997) empirically validated it. Intimacy is the emotional, and passion or
arousal is the motivational, component as already discussed. As Holbrook
and Hirschman (1982a, 1982b) state that perceived symbolic brand benefits
lead to emotional arousal, it is conceptualised that perceived symbolic brand
benefits (brand symbolism) directly influence brand desire or romantic brand
love.
 Sarkar Romantic brand love 31

In summary, perceived brand symbolism is an important predictor of

romantic brand love.

Individual consumers interact with various products (goods/services) every

day. Any product (goods or services) carries certain levels of perceived hedonic
benefits or product hedonism (Carroll & Ahuvia, 2006). Perceived hedonism
or symbolism is high in a few special products, like, musical recordings,
architectural styles, paintings (Holbrook & Hirschman, 1982a). It is assumed
that perceived brand symbolism would be high in a highly symbolic product
category and the same would be low in a low symbolic product category.
Following the same logic it is conceptualised that romantic love for a
brand would be high in a high symbolic product category compared to a
low symbolic product category. We get empirical support for this in Carroll
and Ahuvia’s (2006) study which shows that product hedonism positively
influences brand love.

In summary, perceived product symbolism positively influences the

romantic love felt for any brand in that product category.

Individual personality traits can have direct and indirect influences on brand
affect (Matzler, 2006). Romanticism is an ‘individual difference’ variable
that positively influences hedonic consumption and romantic individuals are
AUTHOR COPY

highly emotive and imaginative (Campbell, 1987; Holbrook, 1997; Holbrook

& Olney, 1995). A romantic person tends to imagine several things beyond
reality (Campbell, 1987). Through this imagining process, emotions are
rearranged or adjusted in an individual’s mind leading to pleasurable arousals.
According to Holbrook (1997), individual romanticism enriches the hedonic
aspects of consumption through the subjective personal introspection (SPI)
process. SPI is defined as “private, self-examination of joys and sorrows that
infuse consumption experiences found in one’s own everyday communion
with the human condition” (Holbrook, 1997, p. 114). Holbrook (1997, p.
104) also states that romanticism does not explain individual consumption
behaviour by answering why people buy; rather it helps to “enrich the
experiences that surround consumption activities…”. Sarkar (2011) argues
that the individual romanticism trait can directly influence romantic brand
love. However, it is counter argued that direct influence is unlikely to happen
and it is romantic advertisement themes or romantic elements in marketing
communication (like, sexual advertisement contents) which can significantly
persuade target customers. If an advertisement contains romantic elements,
it can make consumers engage in subjective personal introspection in relation
to the product or brand and thus enrich consumption experiences. As an
effect of such romantic advertisements, the individual’s perceived product
and brand symbolism both would be enriched. Corporations are increasingly
using romantic themes in their advertisements (Andreoli, 1997; Hakuhodu,
2005). In the context of interpersonal love sexual desire dominates passionate
or arousal feelings (Sternberg, 1986). Over the past four decades, there has
been a documented increase in both the amount and explicitness of sexual
appeals in advertisements (Soley & Kurzbard, 1986). However, sexuality is
just a part of the romantic communication theme and many other aspects,
such as affectionate family bonding, or friendship, are also being explored
by advertisers.
 32 The Marketing Review, 2013, Vol. 13, No. 1

In summary, a romantic brand communication theme positively influences

romantic brand love through enriching perceived brand symbolism and
product symbolism.

Roles played by product utilitarianism in shaping romantic brand

love

An individual buys a product to achieve utilitarian benefits in addition to

symbolic benefits. While buying utilitarian products the consumer takes
economic decisions through deductive reasoning which is different from
any hedonic motive (Holbrook & Hirschman, 1982b). In another article the
same authors (Holbrook & Hirschman, 1982a) analyse how the traditional
information processing buying model and the experiential buying model
differ from each other in terms of inputs, intervening response systems and
outputs. This article also explains that hedonic buying results in emotive
arousals, whereas utilitarian buying only evaluates how well a product is
performing a set of functions. So, a pure utilitarian brand purchase decision
is governed by cognitive information processing and is rational in nature.
If this cognitive preference would sustain for a significant time period, it
would lead to affect and conation (Oliver, 1999) which represents romantic
brand love. In any brand purchase both utilitarian and hedonic perceptions
AUTHOR COPY

do exist (Batra & Ahtola, 1990) and utilitarian motives trigger the phase-wise
progression towards action loyalty via romantic love. As a whole, romantic
love for a brand tends to have some degree of utilitarian grounding. In other
words, love is not blind.

In summary, utilitarian shopping motives are at a cognitive level and

influence romantic brand love following the theory of commodified
emotion. (Boden & Williams, 2002)

Important consequences of romantic brand love

It has already been proposed that romantic brand love leads to action loyalty
by overcoming obstacles. According to Oliver (1999), affective and conative
loyalties lead to action loyalty if the individual can overcome these obstacles.
The obstacles can be: an individual’s variety seeking behaviour, multi-brand
loyalty, withdrawal from product category and changing consumer needs.
All these obstacles promote switching. Shimp and Madden (1988) also
state that brand desire cannot lead to repeat purchase behaviour if external
constraints are present, like, family pressure and peer pressure. The nature
of these obstacles or constraints would vary depending on the nature of
product category.
It is postulated that the individual would be motivated enough to
overcome these obstacles and remain hard-core loyal to a single brand, if the
intensity of brand desire or romantic brand love is very high. Oliver (1999,
p. 36) rightly stated “true loyalty is, in some sense, irrational” and Nozick
(1981, p. 613) identifies romanticism with “overcoming obstacles, breaking
bonds, powerful irrational emotions”. Thus the motivation to overcome the
 Sarkar Romantic brand love 33

obstacles is one important outcome of romantic brand love which would in

turn make the consumer hard-core action loyal.

In summary, romantic brand love motivates the individual to overcome

various obstacles that cause brand switching. This motivation to overcome
obstacles leads to behavioural or action loyalty. The step-wise progression
towards final action loyalty is viewed as a sequential occurrence of brand
cognition, romantic brand love, overcoming obstacles and action loyalty.

Romantic brand love and satisfaction

An individual experiences a brand when he or she is in direct physical contact

with the product (usage of the goods/services) or indirectly when the
product is presented virtually, in situations such as advertisements (Brakus
et al., 2009). An individual consumer’s relations with consumption objects
include different classes, such as an individual’s relationship with a product,
retail store, advertisements, and so on (Shimp & Madden, 1988). This article
contradicts the views of Carroll and Ahuvia (2006) that usage satisfaction
is a prerequisite to brand love. It is argued that the individual can fall in
romantic love with a brand after being exposed to any brand related stimuli,
such as brand advertisements, and actual product usage satisfaction is not
AUTHOR COPY

a necessary pre-condition. Oliver (1999) stated that cognitive loyalty is the

satisfaction derived from evaluating alternative brand attribute information
from prior knowledge or experience. It is realised that satisfaction can be
generated even without actually using the brand. Based on the above
literature review it is conceptualised that romantic brand love occurs when
the forward progression takes place from satisfaction (not necessarily usage
satisfaction) to action loyalty.

In summary, in addition to usage satisfaction various indirect brand stimuli

play an active role in stimulating romantic brand love.

Theoretical contributions

Though brand love research has gained popularity in the recent past, the
theoretical progress has been hampered by (1) divergent views provided by
researchers leading to confusion regarding the explicit theoretical structure
of brand love and (2) the failure to establish proper links between love and
loyalty. This article has attempted to address these two issues. The first
limitation of brand love research has been addressed by critically reviewing
the prior research on love and attachment. Sternberg’s (1986) triangular
theory of love has been considered as the most robust theory and has been
used as the basis for further analysis because Sternberg (1997) empirically
tested the theory on diverse love relationships. Taking Sternberg’s (1986)
triangular theory of love as the basis, the structure of romantic brand love is
conceptualised. Romantic brand love and romantic interpersonal love both
consist of two dimensions: intimacy and passion. Though prior research
already discussed romantic brand love (Sarkar, 2011), it does not discuss
where romantic brand love can be positioned in the sequential stages of
 34 The Marketing Review, 2013, Vol. 13, No. 1

brand attitude formation leading to action loyalty. Sarkar (2011) stated

that romantic brand love would lead to conative loyalty. In this article that
view has been contradicted by analysing how affective and conative brand
attitudes become the dimensions of romantic brand love. Romantic brand
love motivates an individual to overcome switching obstacles and thus leads
to action loyalty. From the conceptual analysis it comes out where romantic
brand love occurs in the phase-wise brand attitude formation described
by Oliver (1999). Romanticism is proposed to be the core of overall brand
love described by Batra et al. (2012). This article critically revisits Campbell’s
(1987) romantic ethics of modern consumerism by proposing the theoretical
structure of romantic love in the context of individual consumption.

Managerial implications

The key managerial implications of the present analysis lie in how individual
consumers can be motivated to overcome various obstacles causing brand
switching. It is postulated that an individual would be motivated enough
to overcome bstacles and remain truly action loyal to a single brand, if the
intensity of brand desire or romantic brand love is high enough. Oliver (1999,
p. 36) rightly stated “true loyalty is, in some sense, irrational” and Nozick
(1981, p. 613) identifies romanticism with “overcoming obstacles, breaking
AUTHOR COPY

bonds, powerful irrational emotions”. Thus the motivation to overcome

obstacles is one important behavioural outcome of romantic brand love which
would in turn make a consumer hard-core action loyal. Brand managers are
encouraged to increase the intensity of romantic brand love among target
consumers by incorporating themes that can romanticise consumer-brand
relationships in their brand advertisements. Romantic brand promotions
may make consumers engage in subjective personal introspection in relation
to the brand. Subjective personal introspection would enrich product and
brand symbolism that would in turn induce romantic brand love. It is also
suggested that marketers should highlight utilitarian benefits in brand
advertisements in addition to romantic content. Consumers must perceive
utilitarian benefits through cognitive processing (Oliver, 1999) which will
give the basis for engaging in romantic love.

Limitation and future research

This analysis mainly focuses on romantic brand love composed of brand-

intimacy and brand-passion. Overall brand love might include dimensions
other than intimacy and passion. This article does not identify the theoretical
dimensions of brand love other than intimacy and passion and only proposes
that romantic brand love is the core constituent of overall brand love.
However, more investigations are needed to develop an exhaustive list of
brand love dimensions. Until now, no scale exists to measure subjective
personal introspection in a consumption context. Though we have scales to
measure brand loyalty, there is no separate and psychometrically reliable scale
to measure different phases of loyalty. All the propositions developed in this
article are at the higher levels of abstraction. Studies need to be conducted
 Sarkar Romantic brand love 35

to empirically validate them. Given the increasing importance of brand love

to marketing theory, the present contributions are only the initiation, a great
deal of research remains.

References

Albert, N., Merunka, D.R., & Valette-Florence, P. (2008). Conceptualizing and

measuring consumers’ love towards their brands. In W.J. Kehoe & L.K. Whitten
(Eds.), Advances in Marketing: Issues, Strategies and Theories (pp. 108-111).
Tuscaloosa, AL: Society for Marketing Advances.
Albert, N., & Valette-Florence, P. (2010). Measuring the love feeling for a brand using
interpersonal love items. Journal of Marketing Development and Competitiveness,
5(1), 57-63.
Andreoli, T. (1997). Blimpie gets romantic. Adweek Eastern Edition, 38(7), 6.
Batra, R., & Ahtola, O. (1990). Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian sources of
consumer attitudes. Marketing Letters, 2(2), 159-170.
Batra, R., Ahuvia, A., & Bagozzi, R.P. (2012). Brand love. Journal of Marketing,
76(March), 1-16.
Baumeister, R.F., & Bratslavsky, E. (1999). Passion, intimacy and time: Passionate love
as a function of change in intimacy. Personality and Social Psychology Review,
3(1), 49-67.
Belk, R., Ger, G., & Askegaard, S. (2000). The missing streetcar named desire. In S.
Ratneshwar, D.G. Mick & C. Huffman (Eds.). The Why of consumption (pp. 98-
AUTHOR COPY

119). London: Routledge.

Bergkvist, L., & Bech-Larsen, T. (2010). Two studies of consequences and actionable
antecedents of brand love. Journal of Brand Management, 17(7), 504-518.
Boden, S., & Williams, S.J. (2002). Consumption and emotion: The romantic ethic
revisited. Sociology, 36(3), 493-512.
Brakus, J.J., Schmitt, B.H., & Zarantonello, L. (2009). Brand experience: What is it?
How is it measured? Does it affect loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 73(3), 52-68.
Campbell, C. (1987). The romantic ethic and the spirit of modern consumerism. New
York: Basil Blackwell.
Carroll, B.A., & Ahuvia, A.C. (2006). Some antecedents and outcomes of brand love.
Marketing Letters, 17(2), 79-89.
Churchill Jr., G.A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing
constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 64-73.
Clark, M.S., & Reis, H.T. (1988). Interpersonal processes in close relationships. Annual
Review of Psychology, 39, 609-672.
Dichter, E. (1947). Psychology in market research. Harvard Business Review,
25(Summer), 432-443.
Dichter, E. (1964). Handbook of consumer motivation: The psychology of the world
of objects. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.
Escalas, J.E., & Bettman, J.R. (2005). Self-construal, reference groups, and brand
meaning. Journal of Consumer Research, 32, 378-389.
Hakuhodu, M.J.M. (2005, September 30). Breaking campaigns. B&T Weekly,
54(2538), 12. www.bandt.com.au Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com/
ehost/detail?vid=4&sid=64e31199-e16b-4af8-b6a8-5ab43f102deb%40sessio
nmgr115&hid=128&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=bth&
AN=22328650
Hatfield, E., & Sprecher, S. (1986). Measuring passionate love in intimate relationships.
Journal of Adolescence, 9, 383-410.
Hatfield, E., & Walster, G.W. (1978). A new look at love. Lantham, MA: University
Press of America.
 36 The Marketing Review, 2013, Vol. 13, No. 1

Hazan, C., & Shaver, P.R. (1994). Attachment as an organizational framework for
research on close relationships. Psychological Inquiry, 5(1), 1-22.
Hazan, C., & Zeifman, D. (1999). Pair bonds as attachments. In J. Cassidy & P.R.
Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of Attachment (pp. 336-354). New York: Guilford.
Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. (1986). A theory and method of love. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 50(2), 392-402.
Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S.S. (1989). Research on love: Does it measure up? Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(5), 784-794.
Holbrook, M.B. (1997). Romanticism, introspection and the roots of experiential
consumption. Consumption Markets and Culture, 1(2), 97-164.
Holbrook, M.B., & Hirschman, E.C. (1982a). The experiential aspects of consumption:
Consumer fantasies, feelings, and fun. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(2), 132-
140.
Holbrook, M.B., & Hirschman, E.C. (1982b). Hedonic consumptions: Emerging
concepts, methods and propositions. Journal of Marketing, 46(3), 92-101.
Holbrook, M.B., & Olney, T.J. (1995). Romanticism and wanderlust: An effect of
personality on consumer preferences. Journal of Psychology and Marketing,
12(3), 207-222.
Keh, H.T., Pang, J., & Peng, S. (2007). Understanding and measuring brand love.
In J.R. Priester, D.J. MacInnis, & C.W. Park, (Eds.), New Frontiers in Branding:
Attitudes, Attachments, and Relationships (pp. 84-88). Advertising and
Consumer Psychology Conference Proceedings. Santa Monica, CA: Society for
Consumer Psychology.
Lee, J.A. (1977). A typology of the styles of loving. Personality and Social Psychology
AUTHOR COPY

Bulletin, 3(Spring), 173-182.

Matzler, K. (2006). Individual determinants of brand affect: The role of the personality
traits of extraversion and openness to experience. Journal of Product and Brand
Management, 15(7), 427-434.
Mehrabian, A., & Russell J.A. (1974). An approach to environmental psychology.
Cambridge, MA : MIT Press.
Nozick, R. (1981). Philosophical Explanations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Oliver, R.L. (1999). Whence consumer loyalty. Journal of Marketing, 63(special issue),
33-44.
Reis, H.T., & Patrick, B.C. (1996). Attachment and intimacy: Component processes.
In E.T. Higgins & A.W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic
Principles (pp. 523-563). New York: Guilford.
Reis, H.T., & Shaver, P. (1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In S. Duck (Ed.),
Handbook of Personal Relationships: Theory, Research and Intervention (pp.
367-389). Chichester, England: Wiley.
Roy, K.S., Eshghi, A., & Sarkar, A. (2012, May 4). Antecedents and consequences of
brand love. Journal of Brand Management, 1-8. Doi (advance online) 10.1057/
bm.2012.24.
Sarkar, A. (2011). Romancing with a Brand: A Conceptual Analysis of Romantic
Consumer-Brand Relationship. Management & Marketing, 6(1), 79-94.
Schiffman, L.G., Kanuk, L.L., Kumar, S.R. & Wisenblit, J. (2010). Consumer decision
making and beyond. In Consumer behavior (10th edition, pp. 424-465). New
Delhi: Pearson education.
Schouten, J.W., & McAlexander, J.H. (1995). Subcultures of consumption: An
ethnography of the new bikers. The Journal of Consumer Research, 22(1), 43-
61.
Shimp, T.A., & Madden, T.J. (1988). Consumer-object relations: A conceptual
framework based analogously on Sternberg’s triangular theory of love. Advances
in Consumer Research, 15, 163-168.
 Sarkar Romantic brand love 37

Soley, L., & Kurzbard, G. (1986). Sex in advertising: a comparison of 1964 and 1984
magazine advertisements. Journal of Advertising, 15(3), 46-54.
Sternberg, R.J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 93(2), 119-
135.
Sternberg, R.J. (1997). Construct validation of a triangular love scale. European
Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 313-335.
Thomson, G.H. (1939). The factorial analysis of human ability. London: London
University Press.
Thomson, M., MacInnis, D.J., & Park, C.W. (2005). The ties that bind: measuring the
strength of consumers’ emotional attachments to brands. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 15(1), 77-91.
Thurstone, L.L. (1938). Primary Mental Abilities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Whang, Y.-O., Allen, J., Sahoury, N., & Zhang, H. (2004). Falling in love with a
product: The structure of a romantic consumer-product relationship. Advances
in Consumer Research, 31, 320-327.

About the author and correspondence

Abhigyan Sarkar has a Doctorate in management from ICFAI-University-

Dehradun, India. He is employed at the faculty of marketing at IBS-Hyderabad
(deemed university), India. His research interests include experiential
consumption. Research articles authored by him have appeared in Journal
AUTHOR COPY

of Brand Management, Management & Marketing, Romanian Journal of

Marketing, International Management review, Annals of the University of
Bucharest and International Journal of Applied Behavioral Economics.
Dr Abhigyan Sarkar, IBS-Hyderabad, Dontanapally, Shankarapalli Road,
Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh 501504, India
E abhigyansarkar_2003@yahoo.co.in

View publication stats