Final Draft

What is the relationship between branding and The Consumer Self?

The relationship between branding and the consumer self is one that is mutually beneficial for both partners. Consumers develop a relationship with brands by regarding them as partners, providing them an opportunity to demonstrate individuality and social belonging. Brands in turn are treated as cultural symbols and are humanised in the eyes of the consumer, which become more valuable than their monetary gains. This essay seeks to explore this relationship by identifying how the term “branding” was established, how the relationship can be explained through brand loyalty and whether the relationship should only be defined by the consumer “self”.

Prior to the term branding, products were advertised simply as goods. In the machine-age, corporations were mainly focused in the production of these goods. It was only until the mid 1980s that new companies such as Nike and Microsoft challenged this notion and realised that what companies produced primarily were not things, but images of their brands (Klein, 2001:4). Marketing thus became the primary focus of new companies instead of the manufactured goods. This meant branding generic goods such as sugar, flour, soap and cereal, which had been previously scooped out by shopkeepers (Klein, 2001:6). The introduction of corporate logos and “personalities” such as Aunt Jemima allowed for a new channel of communication to the consumer for the company. And when the market became saturated with logos, companies began extending their brand into an “experience” to stand out. As Starbucks CEO Howard Schulz writes, the people aren’t there for the coffee, “It’s the romance of the coffee experience, the feeling of warmth and community people get in Starbucks stores” (Schulz, 1997:5). The significance of this was that brands were becoming more and more intertwined with the consumer’s everyday life. The constant interaction with brands imprinted their names into the consumer’s minds. It soon became that some items were known for the brand and not the actual name, for example Kleenex or Q-tips. This change in role thus affected the consumer. No longer were the public buying the best advertised product, they were buying into the brand image as well. And by association the consumer then effectively creates a self image through that brand. Thus the relationship between branding and the consumer self is formed.    

The relationship between branding and the consumer self can be explained through one’s brand loyalty and the association of the brand to the consumer’s self image. Consumer’s form a relationship with their brands through their own perceived self-image. The truth of the consumer’s own self image and effect of creating this loyalty between the two can be explored once a definition of what brand loyalty has been established. By establishing a definition of brand loyalty, it will justify the reasons why consumers choose their brands based on links between their own self image and the brand itself. Loyalty to a brand is conceptualized as being the intention to purchase a brand or a product and to encourage people to do so (Lau & Lee, 1999). For Walters and others (1989), loyalty is ‘the consumer’s propensity to buy the same product (brand) or to frequent the same shop whenever he needs this product’. Thus the relationship between the consumer and their brand loyalty can be seen as an emotional attachment to the brand. For the consumer attaches his/her own emotional ties to the characteristics of the brand which leads to repeated buying of the product. However, Achour (2006) argues that loyalty and attachment towards a brand are not necessarily synonyms. He states that ‘some consumers who are loyal to a brand are not necessarily attached to it: it is the case of those customers who are loyal to brand because they have no other alternative due to limited financial resources, availability of the brand, appropriateness of the shop where they go shopping etc.’ Thus we can see through these definitions that brand loyalty is the repeated purchasing of the same product regardless of the market options and or the repeated purchasing of the product because it is the best given option within their financial and environmental surroundings.

However, what establishes this brand loyalty, as Oliver and Bearden (1983) suggests, is the consumer satisfaction that affects their attitude after purchasing which thereby continuously influences the repurchase intention. Therefore, the sole objective of the brand as Aaker (1997) states, is to develop a strong brand relationship between the consumers and their brand through their brand identity, which in turn builds up brand loyalty.

Consumers build an individual relationship with their brands in much the same way that people initiate and nurture relationships with other people as Fournier (1998) suggests. The consumers want to build a relationship with certain brands when they regard the brand as beneficial or valuable to them (Park, S & Lee, E, 2005). Thus consumers form a brand relationship after they feel that the product offers good value and are satisfied with the product itself (Park, S & Lee, E. 2005).

The establishment of this relationship is also based on the consumer’s self-image. Sirgy (1982, 1986) outlines the importance of self-concept theory in consumer behaviour research by explaining that consumers who perceive the product image to be consistent with their actual self-concept are likely to feel motivated to purchase and consume that product. This is because of the comparison the consumer makes between his own self image and the brand’s stereotypical user of the brand (Sirgy, 1986; Sirgy and others, 1997). Overall this relationship between brand and consumer can be seen as a mutually beneficial one as it provides a win-win situation for both the consumer and brand company (Park, S & Lee, E. 2005). The consumer makes positive connotations between his/her self image and the brands image which in turn produces customer satisfaction upon purchasing which in turn establishes a relation with the brand ensuring further purchases.

Apart from relating to the consumer’s self image, brands utilize celebrities within their product marketing to entice customers. Advertising executives use a celebrity to benefit from his or her fame and gain a better memorization of the advertisement, which entails a better recognition of the associated brand (Achouri, A. & Bouslama, N. 2010). Take for example the recent collaboration between the two fashion houses H&M and Balmain. Within their advertisement campaign, they utilized celebrities such as Kylie Jenner, Jourdan Dunn and Gigi Hadid. Kylie Jenner is a member of the Kardashian family who are highly affluent in todays advertising industry. Her recognisability from the Kardashian family creates an audience that idolizes her and as such when placed on the ad campaign, will draw attention towards the collaboration. Also, Jourdan Dunn and Gigi Hadid are upcoming supermodels that have been sought after in the fashion industry. To place them on the ad campaign will boost the collaborations appeal and add to its exclusivity. Therefore, by having celebrities on the ad campaign, the H&M and Balmain brand aim to form a relationship with the the followers of Kylie Jenner and the fashion forward public. As mentioned earlier, when brands use celebrities for advertising, there is an association made between the brand and the celebrity. This association creates an opportunity for the consumer to emulate the celebrity or brand values. This is an increasingly significant strategy by which people lower in social hierarchy attempt to realize their aspirations towards higher status through modifying their behaviour, their dress and the kinds of goods they purchase (Miller, D. 1987). This point can also be applied towards the H&M and Balmain collaboration. Since Balmain are a high fashion house, it carries connotations of exclusivity and wealth. Two qualities that people in the higher social hierarchy acquire. Thus when Balmain collaborate with H&M, a brand made for the common people, the Balmain name becomes more affordable to those who wish to attain their products but don’t have the financial capability to do so. Therefore, by purchasing the goods made by the collaboration, the consumer associates the specific personality features to the brand, allowing the consumer to express a certain conception of him/herself, so as to require some value enhancing, symbolic benefits from a given consumption (Vernette, 2003).

Hence we can see that brands have an impact on the consumer’s behaviour as the consumer compares his/her image to that of the brand, whether implicitly or explicitly (Achouri, A. & Bouslama, N. 2010).

The definition of a consumer’s self image can be determined through two defining arguments, whether the consumer relates the brand to their actual self image or align their perceived image to suit the brands advertising. According to L’Ecuyer (1994), the theory of self-image refers to the way a person perceives himself, to a set of characteristics, personal features, roles and values, etc. However according to Sirgy (1985), when the image of the brand is perceived to be similar to the consumer’s self-image in terms of personality attribute types, the consumer tends to develop a favourable attitude towards the brand when deciding about a purchase act, or buying a product again. Thus we can see that from Sirgy’s point of view, the consumer does not aim to purchase a product that is entirely representative of his/her self image but rather one that is similar. Thus the idea of self image is a loose term when the consumer bases his/her self image to products that have ‘similar’ qualities. This argument is supported by Vernette (2008) as the consumer would express his/her self image by choosing brands the personality of which appears close to his/her own personality. Thus as it seems that the term self image is relied on the brand image as it is developed in their mind rather than on the inherent attributes and characteristics of the product (Dick and others, 1990).

The significance of analyzing the relationship brand image and self image is to identify the effect of the relationship on the consumer self. By identifying the effect of the relationship we can identify the type of relationship branding has on the consumer self.

Johar and Sirgy (1991) suggest that the relationship between a brand and the actual or ideal self produces a positive self-appraisal and has an influence on the level of actualization of one’s own present and ideal self, which occurs regardless of other people. At the same time, the association of a brand’s image and the social or ideal-social self can generate the satisfaction of fulfilling other people’s expectations, eliciting their positive appraisals. As we can see the relationship produced between the brand and consumer is a positive one as it raises their self esteem and can superficially raise them in the social hierarchy.

The relationship between branding and the consumer self is not defined by the “self” but the social cultures present in society. As political scientist Aaron Wildavsky (1989:25) explains, “The question of identity may be answered by saying the individuals belong to a strong group, a collective that makes decisions binding on all members, or that their ties to others are weak in that their choices bind only themselves.” He explains that within democratic societies, there is a number of political cultures that revolve around certain sets of beliefs and values that control the consumer’s choice of lifestyle. He then goes on to divide our society into four distinct cultures, elitist, individualist, egalitarian, and fatalist. These cultures are created by the strength and weakness of group boundaries and the numbers and kinds of rules and prescriptions (Berger, 2007:43). Therefore, branding as a form of showing one’s individuality becomes incorrect in this context. It is rather the act of branding oneself to the inherent social group they belong to through purchasing lifestyle “brands” companies offer. As well as Wildavsky views on societies cultures, Mary Douglas, social anthropologist, also agrees in that there are social cultures within our society, however she argues that they can also be seen as consumer cultures. She argues that “cultural alignment is the strongest predictor of preferences in a wide variety of fields” (1997:23), stating that the choice of one’s lifestyle “brand” is based upon the social culture people associate themselves with. Her theory suggests that there is an inherent logic behind the shopping that people do and, furthermore it is shoppers, or consumer, who ultimately dictate what will be sold (Berger, 2007:46). She states that “The shopper is not expecting to develop a personal identity by choice of commodities; that would be too difficult. Shopping is agnostic, a struggle to define not what one is but what one is not. When we include not one cultural bias, but four, and when we allow that each is bringing critiques against the others, and when we see that the shopper is adopting postures of cultural defiance, then it all makes sense” (1997:30). Therefore, in this context, the determining factor in identifying oneself would be the association to one of the four antagonistic consumer cultures rather than one’s socioeconomic class and discretionary income (Berger, 2007:46). The significance of all this is that it questions the role of identity within the “consumer self” and thus changes the relationship between it and branding.

The ways in which brands use to target its consumers identifies the issue of whether the consumer self associates with the brand individually or the culture that surrounds it. As Naomi Klein states “By the mid nineties, companies like Nike, Polo and Tommy Hilfigier were ready to take branding to the next level: no longer simply branding their own products, but branding the outside culture as well.” (2001:28). Branding for them became about incorporating cultural ideas and reflecting them through their products. By doing so, it allowed for people to associate with the brand because they felt they associated with that culture. This can be seen in Paul du Gay et al, (1977:66) point on the Sony Walkman, “Sony began to customize the product, targeting different sorts of Walkman at different consumer markets or niches.” Thus by customizing the Walkman, Sony saw the benefit of aiming their product at people’s lifestyles. This practice can also be seen in advertisements. One product Fiske (1989) uses as an example are jeans, namely Levi's. He uses the imagery in an advertisement for Levi's where “three young people in a run down city street who are sharing the hard-living lives they have been born into” (Miles, 1998). He uses this advert to comment on the '...idea that whatever your station in life, the opportunities provided by capitalism, ...mean that anything is possible' (Fiske, 1989; 5-6). This practice of selling a lifestyle rather than the brand itself creates a consumer culture that makes the lifestyle a life project that displays their individuality and sense of style in the particularly of assemblage of goods, clothes, practices, experiences, appearance and bodily dispositions (Featherstone, 1991).

The practice of selling a “lifestyle” towards the consumer only highlights the superficial differentiation in consumer based product design has lead to creating a false identity and a culture within itself. This is based on a term named 'consumer capitalism’ which is a product of companies using their advertising and marketing to sell the product on the basis of superficial design differences. It in turn creates an emerging culture where fashion and product designers can ‘...command a significant degree of cultural capital...' (Miles, 1998:42) despite whether the people can afford it. This culture dictates how the consumer wants to see themselves as through the purchasing of specific goods aimed at their subscribed lifestyle. Therefore, from this argument as a whole we can see that the consumer self is identified by the lifestyles they choose. The relationship between branding and the consumer self then becomes dependent on the cultures evident in society. Both the brands and the consumer self associate themselves with a culture and attempt to market themselves through it. This change from consumer self to consumer culture was not present from the start of this relationship however. Initially, consumers could identify themselves through their products where it be from fashion, food or type of car. But as more and more companies grew international and increased in manufacturing, the market today is filled to the brim with consumer products that crosses cultural boundaries and create international trends. Consumers then become a personification of the mass produced products they purchase. They are indistinguishable from one another within their culture or social hierarchy are less and less individual despite their efforts. Thus the relationship can no longer be viewed within the scope of the “self” but rather the surrounding social factors that influence the consumer.

The relationship between branding and the consumer self is a relationship that has evolved since the mid 1980s. From the early days when branding was just a term for creating an image for the product, it has become a term that extends itself to the creation of lifestyles, trends and movements that crosses international borders which in some cases does not even require a product itself. Brands today are integral to our daily lives and surrounds us fully. Along with this evolution saw the change in the consumer. Consumers were once simply buyers of goods for necessity, as brands became more influential and persuasive, the consumer’s behaviour changed, spawning the desire for self image and self fulfilment through these goods. As a result, the the relationship between these two has evolved. No longer can the “self” be just a partner in this relationship. The relationship between branding and the consumer self is a relationship that has extended beyond the companies and consumers that market themselves and has become a force that transforms the cultural landscape of societies.

Bibliography

Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of Brand Personality. Journal of Marketing Research. Vol. 34, No. 3 (Aug., 1997). p.347-357.

Achouri, A. & Bouslama, N. (2010) The Effect of the Congruence between Brand Personality and Self-Image on Consumer’s Satisfaction and Loyalty: A Conceptual Framework IBIMA Business Review. Vol. 2010 p. 1-16. Available from http://www.ibimapublishing.com/journals/IBIMABR/2010/627203/627203.pdf. [Accessed on 21 November 2015]

Berger, A. A., (2007). Ads, Fads, & Consumer Culture. 3rd ed. United States of America: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Douglas, M. (1997). “In Defence of Shopping,” in Pasi Falk and Colin Campbell, eds. The Shopping Experience. London: Sage.

Dick A., Chakravarti, D. and Biehal, G. (1990), Memory based inference during consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Research. [Online] Vol. 17. p.82-93. Available from http://leeds-faculty.colorado.edu/Chakrava/..%5CChakrava%5CPublished%20Articles%5CMemory%20based%20inferences%20during%20consumer%20choice.pdf. [Accessed 22 November 2015].

Featherstone, M. (1991). Consumer Culture and Postmodernism. London: Sage.

Fiske, J. (1989). Understanding Popular Culture. London:Unwin Hyman

Fournier, S. (1998), Consumer and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in Consumer Research. Journal of Consumer Research, Inc. Vol. 24. p.234-249.

du Gay, P., Hall, S., Jones, L., Mackay, H., & Negus, K., (1997). Doing Cultural Studies: The Story of the Sony Walkman. London: Sage.

Graeff, T. R. (1997). Consumption Situations and the Effects of brand image on Consumers’ Brand Evaluations, Psychology and Marketing. Psychology & Marketing. Vol. 14 (1). p.49-70.

Johar, J. S., Sirgy, J. M. (1991). Value-expressive versus utilitarian advertising appeals: When and why to use which appeal. Journal of Advertising. Vol. 20 (3). p.23-33.

Klein, N. (2001). No Logo. London: Flamingo.

L’Ecuyer R. (1994), Le développement du concept de soi, de l’enfance à la vieillesse. Montréal : Presse de l'Université de Montréal.

Miller, D. (eds.) (1987). Material Culture and Mass Consumption. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd.

Miles, S. (1998). Consumerism as a way of life. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Park, S & Lee, E. (2005) Congruence Between Brand Personality and Self-Image, and the Mediating Roles of Satisfaction and Consumer-Brand Relationship on Brand Loyalty. Asia Pacific Advances in Consumer Research. [Online] Vol. 6. p. 39-45. Available from http://www.acrwebsite.org/search/view-conference-proceedings.aspx?Id=11859. [Accessed 21 November 2015]

Oliver, R. L. & Bearden, W. O. (1983) , The Role of Involvement in Satisfaction Processes. Advances in Consumer Research [Online] Vol. 10. p. 250-255. Available from: http://www.acrwebsite.org/search/view-conference-proceedings.aspx?Id=6098. [Accessed on 22 November 2015]

Schulz, H. (1997). Pour Your Heart into It. New York: Hyperion.

Sirgy, J. M. (1982). Self-Concept in Consumer Behavior: A Critical Review. Journal of Consumer Research, p. 287-300. [Online] Available from http://ujangsumarwan.blog.mb.ipb.ac.id/files/2010/06/SirgyJCR-1982.pdf. [Accessed on 22 November 2015]

Sirgy J. M. (1985), Self image/Product image congruity and consumer decision making. International Journal of Management. Vol 2. p.49-63.

Sirgy, J. M. (1986). Self-congruity: toward a theory of personality and cybernetics. New York: Praeger.

Vernette E. (2003). Études Marketing appliquées: De la stratégie au mix : analyses et tests pour optimiser votre action marketing. Dunod.

Vernette E. (2008). Les atouts et les pièges de la personnalité de la marque. Décisions Marketing. Vol 49. p. 24.

Walters C.G., Bergiel B.G. & Sheth J.N. (1989), Consumer behavior : A decision-marketing approach. Mason: South-Western publishing CO.

Wildavsky, A. (1989). “A Cultural Theory of Preference Formation” in Authur Asa Berger, ed., Political Culture and Public Opinion. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.