2

Journal of Product & Brand Management
Exploring behavioural branding, brand love and brand co-creation

Hans Ruediger Kaufmann Sandra Maria Correia Loureiro Agapi Manarioti
Article information:
To cite this document:
Hans Ruediger Kaufmann Sandra Maria Correia Loureiro Agapi Manarioti , (2016),"Exploring behavioural branding, brand
love and brand co-creation", Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 25 Iss 6 pp. -
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-06-2015-0919
Downloaded on: 10 August 2016, At: 01:59 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Downloaded by United Arab Emirates University At 01:59 10 August 2016 (PT)
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:232579 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Exploring behavioural branding, brand love and co-creation
From user to co-creator: the need for a paradigm shift

For the past decades, researchers have been pointing to the urgent need for new marketing approaches
transcending the narrow product focused, one-way communication patterns. In his 1994 article,
Grnroos foresaw a paradigmatic focal shift in marketing regarding the transition from the products
and services era to the relationship building era (Grnroos, 1994) and a decade later Vargo and Lusch
(2004) introduced the highly influential concept of Service Dominant Logic, as a platform underlying all
transactions and relationships with consumers, regardless if the object is tangible or not. Later, in 2006,
Balmer and Greyser not only confirmed the Grnroos prediction, but even suggested that this
Relationship Marketing era has swiftly evolved into something new: a corporate-level marketing
orientation pursuing a holistic institutional approach where building meaningful sustainable
relationships with various stakeholders should be the core of any strategy (Balmer and Greyser, 2006).
From this point of view, the brand becomes the experience (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004), and
building strong, admirable corporate brands, that stakeholders can engage with, becomes the ultimate
marketing objective. In this pursuit, the role of stakeholders in branding changes and both, customers
and employees are seen as co-creators in shaping an organizations offerings (Rungfapaisarn, 2011 in
Balmer, 2011). Since marketing focus moves from unique selling propositions to emotions, relationships
and communities, new terms are introduced in the marketing terminology, reflecting this novel
dimension: brand love, behavioural branding, co-creation.
In this business and social context where the stake is the development of sustainable relationships
between the brand and its stakeholders, the most important question is as to how do stakeholders
relate to brands. Researchers have proposed different factors to be crucial for this relationship, from
the personality of the brand and the extent to which it expresses the values of consumers (e.g. Fournier
1998; Aaker 1997; Aaker 1999; Escalas 2004; Escalas and Bettman, 2005; Wallace et al., 2014) to the
trustworthiness of the brand (e.g., Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001; Delgado-Ballester and Munuero-
Aleman, 2001; Delgado-Ballester and Munuero-Aleman, 2005; Esch et al., 2006). From a more
evolutionary point of view, Schmitt (2012) describes this consumer brand relationship as a three tiers
construct: (i) Object-centred engagement, (ii) Self-centred engagement and (iii) Social Engagement.
1
Those layers reflect an understanding that different needs, motives and goals result in different
psychological levels of engagement. In the first layer, the consumer-brand relationship is a functionally
driven engagement; that is, the consumer acquires information about the brand with the goal of
receiving utilitarian benefits from the brand (Schmitt, 2012 p.8). In the second layer, the brand is
related to the identity of the consumer, while, on the third level, the brand provides a sense of
community.
From a similar perceptive, but incorporating the fledging concept of co-creation, Kaufmann et al.
(2012a) illustrate the different roles of the consumer in the relationship with the brand, as follows:
- At the initial stage, the consumer shows a primal attraction to a specific brand and engages in
collecting information about it, acting as a browser- a loose relationship similar to the Object-centred
layer of Schmitts model.
- As congruence between the consumers values and the brand is discovered and the latter evolves to
a self-identification medium, the consumer becomes a mingler, a member of a community formed
around the brand from people sharing the same values and ideas.
- At the final stage, termed by the authors as resonance the consumer becomes an active member
of the community, feeling the emotional obligation and commitment towards the group, participating
in the creation of the brand and its value. At this point, the consumer brand relationship is a social act, a
reward itself reflecting the emerging need of belonging (Arnett et al., 2003).
For moving a consumer to the initial stage of the relationship of an object-centred engagement or basic
attractiveness to the brand, traditional branding practices (e.g. advertising and promotions) are very
effective, as the messages communicated through ads facilitate recall and recognition and support the
goal of awareness (Keller, 1987; Lowrey et al., 2003; Schmitt, Tavassoli, and Millard, 1993, in Schmitt,
2012). However, as the relationship becomes more self-related, its the personality of the brand, the
human characteristics attached to it (Aaker, 1997; Aggarwal and McGill, 2012) and the emotions
developed through experience that defines the nature of engagement. Traditional branding approaches
focusing on unique selling propositions have become outdated, because of this very change in
customers values and aspirations about the brands (Gobe, 2001 in Schmitt 2012), and it is becoming
increasingly obvious that appealing advertising is not sufficient anymore for a brand to be strong
(Burmann and Zeplin, 2005).
2
According to Keller and Lehmann (2003), it is not the advertising or marketing spending that
distinguishes the strong brands, but how they relate to qualitative aspects. The functional
characteristics of the brand, like quality, do not guarantee its success (Buil et al., 2013; Bravo e al.,
2007). As Holbrook and Batra (1987) suggested at an early stage of the development of this research
stream, the relationship between the consumer and the brand is based on the spectrum of different
emotions induced, and, although the content of the ad can play a significant role (Holbrook and Batra,
1987; Buil et al., 2013) it is the congruence between the consumer, stakeholder and the brand values
that nurture this relationship (Schmitt, 2012; Balmer, 2011; Kaufmann et al., 2012b).
In the final stages of the aforementioned models- social engagement and resonance- consumers have a
strong feeling of obligation towards the community and will engage in joint actions to accomplish
collective goals (e.g. Muniz and OGuinn, 2001; McAlexander et al., 2002; Algesheimer et al., 2005;
Bagozzi and Dholakia, 2006; Schau et al., 2009; Kaufmann et al., 2012a). In this new context, where the
role of the consumer is shifting from passive user to co-creator and active participant in the value
process (Cherif and Miled, 2013) and the brands are becoming social symbols that signal a coherent
group identity (Burmann and Zeplin, 2005), brand loyalty is determined by the extent to which value
congruence exists, (Thomson et al., 2005; Carroll and Ahuvia, 2006; Batra et al., 2012; Loureiro et al.,
2012) and the intensity of participation in the brand community and the value creation processes
(Casal et al., 2008; Hatch and Schultz; 2010; Kaufmann et al., 2012a; Ind et al.,2013).
Therefore, the significant role of the interrelationship between brand love, behavioural branding and
co-creation emerges due to the encounter and the cross-fertilization of subjective and psychological
meaning-making processes between two or more actors, like brands and consumers (Gambetti and
Graffigna, 2015 p. 158) This perspective calls for an integration of both the customer (Yi and Gong,
2013) and the employees in this co-creation equation (Hatch and Schultz, 2010; Gambetti and
Graffigna, 2015), but extant literature has paid little attention to the role of employees in the
development of the relationship, despite how determinant they are in the expressiveness of the brand
value and in the brand experience itself . Employees, when living the brand themselves they become
part of the meaning making process, they humanize the brand values and motivate consumers to
engage (Morhart et al., 2009) Therefore, the aim of this article is to stimulate further research on
consumer-brand relationships by exploring how behavioural branding practices might influence both,
the quality of the emotional attachment between the two parts and the success of the co-creating
process. Innovative findings will equip managers and academics with a novel approach to the role of
3
leaders, brand managers and/or first line personnel to maximize and, ultimately, leverage brand loyalty
for co-creation by authentic and mutually beneficial consumer brand relationships.
Co-creating behaviour based on commitment

According to the literature, strong brands are built through a co-creation process involving a number of
players, especially brand managers and the brands consumers (Sherry, 1998; Brown et al., 2003;
Coupland et al., 2005 in Boyle, 2007) and based on the overall brand experience, entailing a post-
consumption social angle (Brakus et al., 2013) that constitutes a new set of benefits, the participation
benefits (Ind et al., 2013). All the stakeholders of the (strong) brands engage in a marketing dialogue
which is key to achieving involvement and loyalty (Casal et al., 2008; Hatch and Schultz, 2010). Brand
loyalty is defined as "a deeply held commitment to rebuy or repatronize a referred product or service
consistently in the future, despite situational influences and marketing efforts having the potential to
cause switching behaviour" (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001). Loyal consumers show more favourable
responses to a brand while they resist switching to another (Yoo et al., 2000) and they are willing to pay
a price premium, as they perceive some unique value, determined by brand trust or feeling elicited by
the brand (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001).
Due to the complexity of co-creation as a concept, different approaches and definitions have been
proposed in the literature, differentiating as to the importance of communities. For one school of
thought, co-creation is about the customer-led interactions between the customer and the brand
(France et al., 2015), the sum of the two elements, participation and citizenship (Yi and Gong, 2013),
and a subjective meaning-making process (Gambetti and Graffigna, 2015), where brand communities
might be influential but not a condition sine qua non (France et al., 2015). On the other hand, adopting
a more collaborative approach, Ind et al., supported by Brakus et al. (2013) and the authors of this
article, define co-creation as an active, creative and social process based on collaboration between
organizations and participants that generate mutual benefits for all stakeholders (Ind et al., 2013 p.9),
as reflected by an active participation in a brand community (Kaufmann et al., 2012b), influenced by the
brand community principles (Muniz and O Guinn, 2001). From a customers perspective, this reveals
the commitment and participation towards the entire business organization, finding effective
representation in the willingness [of the consumer] to accept new products or a brand extension, and
furthermore, to introduce new members to the community and to support and sustain the firm in
moments of crisis. In this way, the consumer tends to serve as a brand missionary or ambassador
attracting and captivating new members (Kaufmann et al., 2012b p.408)
4
Participants in the co-creation process are motivated by the sharing of common values and perceive a
moral obligation towards the community. Following Fuellers research on consumer personalities,
consumers motivations for participation vary depending on personality leading to different
expectations towards co-creation. Consumers motivated by intrinsic rewards tend to participate more,
and tend to be more knowledgeable and creative as well as more interested in the co-creation process.
Extrinsic rewards, on the other hand, are not regarded very important in the virtual co-creation process
(Fueller, 2010). Finally, the holistic stakeholder approach (Hatch and Schultz, 2010) proposes that co-
creation is the result of dialogue and access between the company and the stakeholders and
organizational self-disclosure. However, any differences aside, the common ground for most co-
creation researchers is that it is positively related to loyalty (e.g., Casal et al., 2008; Hatch and Schultz;
2010; Kaufmann et al., 2012b). Although extant literature is inconclusive when it comes to the
directionality of this relationship, drawing from the adopted definition we propose what a solid stream
of researchers from different angles- brand communities, their online equivalents and co-creation-
implicitly accepts (eg Algesheimer et al., 2005; Zwass, 2010; Casal et al., 2008; Hatch and Schultz;
2010; Boyle, 2007; Jung et al., 2014; Ind et al., 2013; Cherif and Miled, 2013; Dessart et al., 2015) that
co-creation as an active social process of collaboration, sharing and participation in the context of the
community, leads to loyalty. However, since there are also opponents to this approach (e.g., Wirtz et
al., 2013) that place one aspect of co-creation, the generation of ideas, amongst the outcomes of brand
loyalty, we expect our empirical research to provide us with a more conclusive answer.
Of paramount importance in the co-creation process is the expansion of the social media that provided
both the brands and the consumers with a communication platform and allowed the development of
online communities (Cherif and Miled, 2013; Baldus et al., 2015, Wirtz et al., 2013, Vernuccio et al.,
2015). Since the theory of brand communities apply equally to online and offline contexts (Dessart et
al., 2015), those communities have some constant characteristics explaining how and why a consumer
might evolve from a buyer to a co- creator: a brand community is a set of individuals who voluntarily
relate to each other for their interest in some brand or product. They are characterized by a
consciousness of kind, a feeling that binds every individual to the other community members and
separates them from the non-members, rituals, and traditions shared among the members of the
groups and a sense of moral responsibility commitment to the community and the members (Muniz
and O Guinn, 2001). The interaction among the members, the participation to this community fosters
the development of a salient social identity (Vernuccio et al., 2015) and favours the development of
5
emotional ties and the willingness to continue this relationship in the future, therefore, the willingness
for loyalty (Casal et al., 2008).
From an extensive literature review on co-creation, it occurs that:
- For the co-creating behaviour to occur, an existing relationship between the consumer and the
brand must pre-exist, a relationship characterized by strong emotions and value sharing (Kaufmann et
al., 2012a; Casal et al., 2008; Cherif and Miled, 2013; Dessart et al., 2015; Burmann and Zeplin, 2005;
Bagozzi and Dholakia, 2006; Wirtz et al, 2013; France et al., 2015).
- Apart from the engagement with and the self- expressiveness of the brand, for a co-creating
behaviour to develop, the consumer must feel commitment to the community (Muniz and o Guinn,
2001; Casal et al., 2008; Kaufmann et al., 2012a) and trust that the brand is reliable and transparent
(Casal et al., 2008; Hatch and Schultz; 2010, Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004).
- The co-creation process involves every employee in the company (Fournier and Lee in Hatch and
Schultz, 2010) not just consumers and marketers. In their two axis model explaining the different levels
of co-creation as the result of the dialogue access and risk, Hatch and Schultz (2010) stress the role of
employees as access points to the brand and how their behaviour impacts the co-creation process.
In addition, the role of category involvement has been pertinent to this discussion in the relevant
literature, and it has been proposed as an antecedent of co-creation (France et al., 2015), since
consumers who are highly involved with the category are more motivated to co-create, because they
perceive it as more fulfilling. Although the level of involvement is significant and very much related to
the extent as to which the customer finds the category self-expressive- recent answers to the question
posed by Albert et al. (2008) on whether some product categories are more capable of generating
strong engagement (and love feelings) and, implicitly, influence the co-creating behaviour, posit that
there are no product category differences in terms of the directionality of the relationships between
the different constructs such as brand love (and) brand loyalty [] (Fetcherin et al., 2014 p.84) but it
influences the intense of the relationship and, therefore, could alter the impact on brand loyalty. As,
from an employee point of view, the effects of behavioural branding on brand success are more
obvious in services than in FMCGs, we suggest that further research should focus on the impact of
product category in the co-creation process, further validating the existing findings with empirical
research in relation to co-creation.
6
To sum up, co-creation as a social act of collaborative meaning making, can be of direct or indirect
nature: in its direct form it describes the interactions that occur between the customer and the brand,
face to face as a part of the in role behaviour of the customer, without which the service cannot be
delivered (Yi and Gong, 2013), or between community members and the brand (Ind et al., 2013). The
level of reciprocity from the brand in this interaction whether the brand representatives provide the
community with feedback, updates, a clear purpose etc. is regarded determinant for the overall success
of the interaction (Ind et al., 2013; Gambetti and Graffigna, 2015). Indirect co-creation refers to
participating in networks and community- although not directly communicating with the brand (Ind et
al., 2013), providing assistance to other brand users (Yi and Gong 2013) or sharing social media content
(France et al., 2015).
Therefore, since co-creation is the result of a strong emotional engagement with the brand and its self-
expressiveness (France et al., 2015) and the role of the brand representatives is crucial (Yi and Gong,
2013; Hatch and Schultz, 2010, Gambetti and Graffigna, 2015) there are two constructs that can be
conceptually related to co-creation: Brand love and Behavioural branding. The former is characterised
as the emotional outcome of self-expressiveness and brand attachment (Loureiro et al., 2012), two
elements that emerge as significant for co-creation as well. The latter refers to the effort for the
personnel to live the brand in a way that internal and external stakeholders are aligned (Gregory
2007) and it is in line with the comment made by Hatch and Schultz (2010), that roles of organizational
culture and management practices are relevant to the co-creation process. It is interesting in this
context that the terminology used in the behavioural branding literature, like in role and extra role
behaviour or living the brand is also used in the co-creation literature, mirroring a parallelism of the
two situations (Yi and Gong, 2013; Ind et al., 2013). Before introducing our model exploring the
relationships among co-creating behaviour, brand love, and behavioural branding, we will attempt a
short review of the latter concepts, to illustrate their fundamental affinity to co-creation.
Brand love
Brand Love is a still new concept in the research stream of consumer- brand relationships, with a broad
range of positive emotions and attitudes towards the brand (Batra et al., 2012), that helps explain and
predict variation in desirable post-consumption behaviours among satisfied consumers (Carroll and
Ahuvia, 2006). Those positive emotions and attitudes have been related to greater repurchase
intentions (Thomson et al., 2005; Carrol and Ahuvia, 2006; Batra et al., 2012; Loureiro et al., 2012), less
price sensitivity (Thomson et al., 2005; Batra et al., 2012), resistance to negative information about the
7
brand (Batra et al., 2012) and engagement in positive word of mouth (Carroll and Ahuvia, 2006; Batra et
al., 2012). Scholars identify the characteristics of Brand Love by proposing different sets of factors,
depending on their respective definition of the concept. The most common approach is to relate Brand
Love to interpersonal love and attempt to apply terms and definitions of the latter to Brand Love, as a
result of the fundamental similarities between those concepts (Ahuvia, 2005; Langner et al., 2016).
Despite the popularity of this approach, there is some criticism focus on fundamental differences
between brand and interpersonal love, starting from a finding that consumers do not use the exact
word love when describing their feelings towards a brand- unless the researcher explicitly asks them
to do so. In addition, two fundamental differences between the two constructs are, according to Batra
et al. (2012):
- Although interpersonal love tends to be altruistic and unconditional, participants in their research
documented that this is not true for Brand Love- consumers take perceived excellence as a
prerequisite.
- Contrary to interpersonal love, Brand Love is a situation where reciprocity is not considered as
mandatory because brands are not expected to show emotions.
In literature, it is currently discussed whether customers expect some kind of reciprocity from the
brands they use. Consumers participate in the relationship motivated by intrinsic and/or extrinsic
rewards related to the brand and a need to be heard and taken into consideration- a need that it is very
much present in the co-creation literature as well (Ind et al., 2013). Following Arnett et al. (2003) the
feeling of belonging in a like-minded, self-expressive community is a reward itself reflecting the
emerging need of belonging and the significance of the participation benefits (together with the
functional, emotional and self-expressive ones) of the brand (Ind et al., 2013). In that vein, we propose
that the aforementioned call for reciprocity can be answered by the rewarding co-creating process, or
jeopardized when brand representatives fail to reciprocate (like presented on the case study of Chino
Sanpellegrino illustrated by Gambetta and Graffigna (2015), but further empirical research is suggested
for more conclusive findings in this respect.
In both, the interpersonal and the brand love framework, relationships are developed through time and
love is the ultimate outcome of a process, not an instant result (Albert et al., 2008; Huber et al., 2015;
Langner et al., 2016). In the consumer-brand relationship context, given that consumers do not usually
label their emotions towards brands as love, the Brand Love construct better describes a relationship
between consumers and a brand rather that an episodic emotion (Batra et al., 2012). The definition
8
provided by Carrol and Ahuvia (2006, p. 81) describing brand love as the degree of passionate,
emotional attachment a satisfied consumer has for a particular trade name highlights passion and
emotional attachment as two of the fundamental elements of Brand love.
Passion is the strong desire for a brand, reflecting the higher-arousal emotions (Batra et al., 2012), and
it has been related to brand love (Albert et al., 2008) and emotional attachment (Thomson et al., 2005).
The emotional attachment, on the other hand, a concept very proximate to brand love, is defined as the
emotion-laden target specific bond between a person and a specific object (Thomson et al., 2005).
Attachment is a widely accepted element of Brand Love among researchers (Thomson et al., 2005;
Carroll and Ahuvia, 2006; Albert et al., 2008; Batra et al., 2012; Loureiro et al., 2012). For Batra et al.
(2012) attachment is the emotional bonding with and connection to the brand that might even invoke
separation distress, while, based on Loureiro et al. (2012) model, brand attachment is an antecedent of
Brand Love.
In the literature, more factors can be found as being related to the brand love concept, such as
affection (Thomson et al., 2005; Albert et al., 2008; Batra et al., 2012), positive emotions in response to
the brand (Carroll and Ahuvia, 2006; Albert et al, 2008; Batra et al., 2012; Loureiro et al., 2012),
satisfaction (Thomson et al., 2005; Carroll and Ahuvia, 2006), long time use (Thomson et al., 2005;
Batra et al., 2012; Huber et al., 2015; Langner et al., 2016), perceived functional quality (Batra et al.,
2012), and attitude strength (Batra et al., 2012). Self-related cognitions-/self-expressiveness of the
brand also have been among the antecedents of brand love, separating likeability from love (Batra et
al., 2012). Researchers have now provided evidence that brands that are perceived to enhance ones
social life and/ or reflect the inner self are positively related to the Brand Love outcome (Escalas and
Bettman, 2005; Carrol and Ahuvia, 2006; Loureiro et al., 2012; Vernuccio et al, 2015; Huber et al., 2015).
According to Carroll and Ahuvia (2006) and Loureiro et al. (2012) brand love is a result of the self-
expressiveness of the brand and the hedonic character of the product in the first instance and brand
attachment in the latter.
Conclusively, when a brand represents values that are congruent with the consumers belief system,
when it demonstrates characteristics that enhance the consumers self-image and their social substance
and when it is related to strong and meaningful mental representations, this relationship between the
brand and the consumer can be as strong, enduring and powerful, as love.
9
The role of brand building behaviour
As employees and stakeholders have been identified as significant elements of brand identity, internally
held values, when internalized and expressed by the employees, will determine the strength of the
brand (Burmann et al., 2009) and become the initiator of the co-creating behaviour (Hatch and Schultz,
2010; Boyle, 2007; Payne et al., 2009) . The role of employees in brand building is regarded crucial due
to the fact that many sources of the brand promise are based on the decisions and actions of the
employees with any marketing effort becoming irrelevant without an Institutionalized internal brand
management (Burmann and Zeplin 2005 p.281). For the brand managers pursuing a dynamic consumer
brand relationship, influencing or controlling the perceptions of consumers about the brand is
challenging and difficult (Boyle, 2007); what they can, however, do and control is to actively manage the
brand identity part of this equation (Burmann et al., 2009), in a way, that consistently promotes the mix
of employee behaviours that directly or indirectly determines brand experience (Brakus et al., 2013)
and brand value (Henkel et al, 2007) in order to control the gap between internally and externally held
brand perceptions (De Chernatony, 1999; Hatch and Schulz, 2008).
Research documented that holistic brand experiences can be realized only if employees act both,
functionally correct and brand conform (Burmann and Zeplin, 2005; Henkel et al., 2007). As functional
employee performance is linked to the company performance, but does not contribute to the brand
success (Henkel et al., 2007), in order for a brand to move beyond functional quality and reach holistic
experience and identification levels and engage consumers to a co-creation process, employees need to
move from mere functional performance to brand building behaviours (Burmann and Zeplin, 2005;
Henkel et al., 2007; Morhart et al., 2009). This makes sense given that employees, especially those
being in customer-contact roles, humanize the brand and, hence, with their behaviours can motivate
customers to emotionally connect to it (Morhart et al., 2009). Those behaviours that influence brand
experience are termed as behavioural branding and they are related to higher service quality due to
higher intrinsically motivated employees who identify themselves with the brand (Harris and De
Chernatony, 2001; Henkel et al, 2007; Kaufmann et al., 2012b). This can be explained by research
findings relating customer satisfaction to the quality of the interaction the consumer has with the
employee (Hanna et al., 2004; Morhart et al.,2009).
Based on constructs provided by Morhart et al. (2009), brand building behaviour consists of 3 important
elements: In role brand building behaviour, extra role brand building behaviour and retention. As in
role brand building behaviour can be described the willingness of the employees to follow the
10
standards that have been prescribed by the management either in written, oral or other forms, an
analogy to what Burmann and Zeplin (2005) termed as brand compliance and as formal marketing
control (Jaworski, 1988 in Henkel et al., 2007). Extra role brand building behaviour refers to those brand
-related actions that employees will perform beyond written guides and will indicate the identification
with and internalization of the brand values (Burmann and Zeplin, 2005; Morhart et al., 2009), like
participation and positive word of mouth. The brand-based role identity is regarded salient among the
various role identities within a self-concept (Morhart et al., 2009, p.126) and can act as a motivator for
the employees themselves to become active members of the brand community. Finally, retention
refers to employees upholding their professional relationship with an organization as it facilitates the
development of close relationships between brand users and brand representatives.
Henkel et al. (2007) propose informal marketing control and employee empowerment as the
determinants of the quality of behavioural branding. Based on their research, employees need to find
their own ways of brand representation and they need personal training and coaching to do so rather
than formal marketing control. Whilst being consistent with the finding of the significance of informal
marketing control, Kaufmann et al. (2012b) found formal marketing control in a different cultural
setting to be a significant factor. Also, role identity salience and value congruence respectively are both
important in the behavioural branding framework. Morhart et al. (2009) focused the research on the
balance between leadership styles, as the means to achieve value congruence and role internalization,
and consequently the determinants of the success of building brand consistent behaviours. Applying
the micro sociological concept of identity in terms of value internalization raises the question if more
social benefits and care should accrue to employees rather than merely economic rewards (Kaufmann
et al., 2007).
Implicitly, behavioural branding influences the way consumers perceive the brand and form the brand
image in their minds and the level to which this image communicates their personal values and
aspirations. When brands become self- expressive, the relationship between the brand and the
consumer is characterized by emotions and attitudes that have been labelled as delight, satisfaction
and, love (Carroll and Ahuvia, 2006) and it provides the consumers with the necessary condition for
engaging in the brand community. Also, as the question whether the brands should love their
consumers back raises, social benefits and intrinsic rewards for the consumer can raise from the very
relationship with the brand representatives, and they can be perceived as the way the brands returning
the love- along with events, gifts etc., of course. Following the view of Aggrawal and McGill (2012),
11
when a brand is humanized, anthropomorphized, consumption becomes a social act, a real interaction,
and, from this point of view, consumers engage themselves to a give and take relationship with the
brand, enjoying a feeling of reciprocity.
Proposed model
As discussed, the starting point of co-creation is an existing relationship between the consumer and the
brand, founded on shared values and identification that create a coherent group identity (Kaufmann et
al., 2012a; Cherif and Miled, 2013; Burmann and Zeplin, 2005; Bagozzi and Dholakia, 2006, France et al.,
2015; Hollebeek, 2011) and the development of emotional ties (Casal et al., 2008) that strengthen the
community (Kaufmann et al., 2012a). At this point where the emotional ties, the affective aspect, come
to the centre of attention in the co-creation literature, the concept of brand love arises with an ultimate
impact on brand loyalty (Thomson et al., 2005; Carroll and Ahuvia, 2006, Batra et al.,2012; Loureiro et
al., 2012). But what are the circumstances that nurture the brand love relationship? For our research,
we adopt the model proposed by Loureiro et al. (2012) proposing self-identification and brand
attachment as the antecedent factors of brand love. The model earlier presented by Carroll and Ahuvia
(2006) categorizes brand attachment among the elements of brand love, following the model proposed
by Thomson et al. (2005) that characterizes brand attachment in terms of three emotional components:
affection, passion and connection. From our point of view, which concurs with Park et al. (2010, p. 9),
brand attachment is more than emotions, it is reflected by mental representations (rich cognitive
schemata) that include brand-self cognitions, thoughts, and autobiographical brand memories that may
not be captured by measures of emotions. From this perspective, people (a term proposed by
Christodoulides (2008) as an alternative to consumers when studying emotional relationships) love
the brands that express their existing or desired identities and with which they maintain a bond based
on cognitive schemata and representations (Park et al, 2010).
Interestingly, in a recent study on online brand communities, brand passion, as the term selected to
describe passionate emotional attachment to the brand, has been found to be an antecedent of online
brand community engagement (Baldus et al., 2015) giving us the first sign of evidence that brand love is
related to co-creation. Also, in a model explaining the antecedents and outcomes of co-creation, brand
engagement and self-expressiveness (along with product involvement) are the proposed antecedents
(France et al., 2015). Given the conceptual proximity of brand engagement to brand attachment, we are
provided with a solid indication that brand love is related to co-creation. Outside the brand love
context, two more elements related with the Loureiro et al. (2012) model, those of commitment to the
12
community (e.g., Muniz and o Guinn, 2001; Casal et al., 2008; Kaufmann et al., 2012a) and trust that
the brand is reliable and transparent (Casal et al., 2008; Hatch and Schultz; 2010, Prahalad and
Ramaswamy, 2004) are also related to co-creation. On the other hand, when it comes to the nature of
the relationship between brand loyalty and co-creation, there is no consensus yet, with a solid stream
of the researchers, however (e.g. Muniz and OGuinn, 2001; Algesheimer et al., 2005; Casal et al.,
2008) to posit that loyalty is the outcome of the strong bonds created in the context of a community, a
proposition adopted in our model as well. Given that a strong relationship based on shared values
among the brand, the community, and the consumer is present in the co-creation process, a prior
attachment to the brand is a prerequisite (France et al., 2015; Ind et al., 2013; Gambetti and Graffigna,
2015), and the role of commitment and trust in both brand love and co-creation frameworks, we
propose a synthesized model, based on the one proposed by Loureiro et al. (2012), extended to explore
the relationship between brand love and co-creating behaviour (Figure 1), directly and/or with the
moderation of commitment to community and brand trust.
Previous research studies have suggested and tested the role of brand trust as both, an antecedent
(e.g., Albert and Merunka, 2013) and consequence (e.g., Regan et al., 1998; Albert et al., 2009 in Skoog
and Soederstroem, 2015; Loureiro et al., 2012) of brand love. It seems possible to take the stance that
either perspective can be accepted: that is, a developing trustful relationship may enhance the love
feeling, the passionate feeling for a brand; at the same time, when a consumer is very much in love with
a brand, that emotional relationship (feeling good, happy, passionate about and attached to this brand)
will contribute to developing stronger ties of confidence in such a brand (a reliable and dependable
relationship). So, we suggest further investigating the research question as to brand trust being an
antecedent or consequence of brand love taking the context into account.
Commitment and particularly affective commitment to a brand or a brand community, regarded as a

more emotional long lasting relationship (Johnson et al., 2006), may have a direct effect on brand
loyalty (e.g., Johnson et al., 2006; Loureiro et al., 2012). Loureiro et al. (2012) also proposed a direct
relationship between brand trust and loyalty intentions but, in the context of the automotive industry,
it seems that the strength of the direct relationship is not statistically significant whilst the indirect
effect through commitment is statistically significant. In this vein, we propose that the direct and
indirect effect of brand trust on brand loyalty may depend on context.
13
Figure 1: Initial Model
When approaching the brand as a dialogue platform among community members and other
stakeholders, the role of the employees as access points into the brand is highlighted. The employees
with their behaviours humanize the brand and motivate customers to emotionally connect to it
(Morhart et al., 2009; Aggarwal and McGill, 2012) in a manner that determines the quality of the brand
experience (Burmann and Zeplin, 2005; Henkel et al., 2007) and the level both of engagement and
organizational self-disclosure (Hatch and Schutz, 2010). Hatch and Schultz (2010) explicitly proposed
that management practices related to the employee behaviour need to enter the model of brand co-
creation, a proposition that echoes the suggestions of other researchers (e.g., Balmer and Greyser,
2006; Balmer, 2011, Burmann et al., 2009; Payne, 2009; Boyle, 2007; Kaufmann et al., 2012a) for the
elevated role of the employees in the consumer-brand relationship. Additionally, Yi and Gong (2013)
highlighted the significance of the employee in the co-creation process supported by Gambetti and
Graffigna (2015) presenting in detail how the misalignment of internal meaning making process to the
outside of the company resulted in a failure, emphasizing the role of the brand representatives in this
outcome.
Hence, in the context of our proposed model, a number of new research questions are raised: does the
brand consistent employee behaviour influence the relationship between the consumer and the brand,
namely the brand love relationship, as the values of the brand become more apparent and therefore
easier to be identified with (Morhart et al., 2009; Aggarwal and McGill, 2012)? Furthermore, can
14
behavioural branding, as an element of the brand experience (Brakus et al., 2013) or during the
customer participation process (Yi and Gong, 2013), have a positive influence on co-creation? Or else,
does brand inconsistent employee behaviour de-motivate customers from co-creating, despite their
brand love relationship- as presented by Gambetti and Graffigna (2015)? Moreover, does customer
involvement with the product/service category positively affect the strength of the relationship
between behavioural branding and co-creation (Fetcherin et al., 2014; France et al., 2015)? Finally, we
propose that the empathy of the employees and the quality of the relationship between employees and
customers will have more influence in the case of services compared to products, due to the nature of
the services relating, for example, to the inseparability of service and consumption.
Figure 2: Proposed model
Based on above discussion the following propositions are formulated:
P1: Behavioural Branding positively influences Brand Love and Co-Creation.
P2. Behavioural Branding positively influences co-creation.
P3: Customer Involvement with the product or the service category positively affects the strength of the
relationship between behavioural branding and co-creation.
P4: Customer Involvement with the product or the service category positively affects the strength of the
relationship between brand love and co-creation.
15
P5: Product category and product/service positively affect the strength of the relationship between
brand love and brand loyalty.
P6: Product category and product/service positively affect the strength of the relationship between
trust and brand loyalty.
Our model and research questions will be validated - at an initial exploratory stage - through qualitative
research, in order to obtain in-depth knowledge and better understanding of the interrelated concepts
and perceptions of customers and brand representatives- observing the phenomena from a critical
realist epistemological stance. The emphasis on the emotions and rewards context would allow for a
better theoretical advancement of the value co-creation theory by encouraging multidisciplinary
research glances (Brodie and de Chernatony, 2009) and at a later stage- will be validated through
quantitative research in order to be able to generalize and triangulate our findings.
Further research, discussion and limitations

The primal limitation of our research at the current stage is that it needs to be validated through
research, which will be undertaken in Cyprus and will be focused on the cosmetics industry that has
been characterized as hedonic (Schifferstein and Hekkert, 2011 p. 111) and, therefore, more loveable
(Carroll and Ahuvia, 2006). However, even on this conceptual level, this article contributes to
knowledge by synthesizing three emerging concepts in the branding literature, that havent been
studied in a systematic manner so far. Particularly, the role of behavioural branding, both regarding the
nurturing of the consumer brand relationship, to the level of brand love and in the value co-creation
process has been neglected so far in the literature despite its significance. This article closes this gap by
proposing a multifaceted role of the ways employees behave, as an avenue for a new stream of
research. Additionally, the proposition that co-creation is an outcome of brand love provides both
academics and marketing strategies and tactics of practitioners with new insights on the factors
explaining co-creation and motivating consumers to participate.
From a managerial point of view, brand managers are enabled to identify new customer segments that
will be more prone to co-creation and approach them with new tactics that will motivate them to
engage more with the community. For example, the brand can adopt members only benefits and
access to exclusive information for the members of the community or other initiatives that will trigger
collaboration among the members of the community and enhance their identification with the group
and the brand, like events or team projects- both in an online or offline context, providing the
participators with the intrinsic rewards and participatory benefits necessary to become active and
16
engaged, while allowing the managers to measure and monitor the results. From this vein, the role of
social media in the marketing strategy is shifted and brand managers can exploit them as community
builders and co-creation platforms rather than another medium for brand messages broadcasting.
At the same time, new marketing roles can be introduced, related to the interaction with the
community, as a result of understanding the urgency for reciprocity. On the same token, the
recruitment criteria, the training and the compensation of the first line personnel can be revised to
secure that consumers are presented with a high-standards brand experience and a pleasant, congenial,
social environment that will augment the customer willingness to co-create. Finally, internal initiatives
and motivation plans should be crafted to stimulate the active participation of the brand
representatives to the brand communities, as means to further strengthen the bond between the
brand, the consumers, and the group.
More importantly, however, corporate leaders and brand managers will have a better understanding of
their role in the consumer- brand relationship, adopt new, more collaborative and transformational
leadership styles, initiate the internalization of the brand values into the employees identity and
facilitate employees active participation in the process.
Further empirical research is needed to test and, possibly, differentiate our model in diverse product
categories (i.e. non-hedonic) to explore the role of product category in the co-creation process and also
in the service and diverse cultural contexts. New research in online contexts, where brand co-creators
will not be geographically bounded, is regarded of paramount importance due to the two-way
communication which facilitates co-creation and assumed differentiated brand love and brand loyalty
factors. Due to the integration of micro sociological concepts (i.e. identity), the extent to which
consumers expect or require the brand to reciprocate is also a field that currently lacks consistent and
conclusive evidence.
Additionally, it has been recently proposed by Vernuccio et al. (2015), that Social- Interactive
Engagement is an antecedent of brand love, mediated by social identity. Although not identical to co-
creation, social-interactive engagement is described as a very proximate concept, referring to the
participation of consumers to brand related conversations, sharing of content etc. Therefore, we
propose that further research might be needed to clarify the directionality of the relationship between
brand love and co-creation.
17
While co-creation as a term is positively charged as, in general terms, the literature adopts an optimistic
approach on how consumers participate, share and collaborate with other consumers and the brand
(Ple and Caceres, 2010) but, since brands are losing control over the brand communities (Hatch and
Schultz, 2010; Wirtz et al., 2013), there is always the threat of an avalanche of negative reputation and
unpleasant brand experiences sharing (Cherif and Miled, 2013). We suggest that further research is
needed on the field of negative co-creation to deepen the understanding of reverse dynamics and the
role of employees in this version of the phenomenon that will allow both, academics and practitioners
to create new frameworks to grow and protect the brands.
References
Aaker, J.L. (1999), "The Malleable Self: The Role of Self-Expression in Persuasion." Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 45-57.
Aaker, J.L. (1997), "Dimensions of brand personality", Journal of Marketing Research, pp. 347-356.
Aggarwal, P. and McGill, A.L. (2012), "When Brands Seem Human, Do Humans Act Like Brands?
Automatic Behavioral Priming Effects of Brand Anthropomorphism", Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 39, No. 2, pp. 307-323.
Ahuvia, A.C. (2005), "Beyond the extended self: Loved objects and consumers identity narratives",
Journal of consumer research, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 171-184.
Albert, N. and Merunka, D. (2013), "The role of brand love in consumer-brand relationships", Journal of
Consumer Marketing, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 258-266.
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. 10, pp. 1062-1075.
Algesheimer, R., Dholakia, U.M. and Herrmann, A. (2005), "The Social Influence of Brand Community:
Evidence from European Car Clubs", Journal of Marketing, Vol. 69, No. 3, pp. 19-34.
Arnett, D.B., German, S.D. and Hunt, S.D. (2003), "The identity salience model of relationship marketing
success: The case of nonprofit marketing", Journal of Marketing, Vol. 67, No. 2, pp. 89-105.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Dholakia, U.M. (2006), "Antecedents and purchase consequences of customer
participation in small group brand communities", International Journal of Research in Marketing,
Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 45-61.
Baldus, B.J., Voorhees, C. and Calantone, R. (2015), "Online brand community engagement: Scale
development and validation", Journal of Business Research, Vol. 68, No. 5, pp. 978-985.
18
Balmer, J.M. (2011), "Corporate marketing myopia and the inexorable rise of a corporate marketing
logic: perspectives from identity-based views of the firm", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 45,
No. 9/10, pp. 1329-1352.
Balmer, J.M. and Greyser, S.A. (2006), "Corporate marketing: integrating corporate identity, corporate
branding, corporate communications, corporate image and corporate reputation", European
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 40, No. 7/8, pp. 730-741.
Batra, R., Ahuvia, A. and Bagozzi, R.P. (2012), "Brand love", Journal of Marketing, Vol. 76, No. 2, pp. 1-16.
Boyle, E. (2007), "A process model of brand cocreation: brand management and research implications",
Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 122-131.
Brakus, J.J., Schmitt, B.H. and Zarantonello, L. (2009), "Brand experience: what is it? How is it measured?
Does it affect loyalty?, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 73, No. 3, pp. 52-68.
Bravo G.R., Fraj A.E. and Martinez Salinas, E., 2007. Family as a source of consumer-based brand
equity, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 16, No.3, pp.188-199.
Brodie, R.J. and De Chernatony, L. (2009), "Towards new conceptualizations of branding: theories of the
middle range", Marketing Theory, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 95-100.
Buil, I., de Chernatony, L. and Martnez, E. (2013), "Examining the role of advertising and sales
promotions in brand equity creation", Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66, No. 1, pp. 115-122.
Burmann, C., Jost-Benz, M. and Riley, N. (2009), "Towards an identity-based brand equity model",
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 62, No. 3, pp. 390-397.
Burmann, C. and Zeplin, S. (2005), "Building brand commitment: A behavioural approach to internal
brand management", Journal of brand management, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 279-279.
Carroll, B.A. and Ahuvia, A.C. (2006), "Some antecedents and outcomes of brand love", Marketing
Letters, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 79-89.
Casal, L.V., Flavin, C. and Guinalu, M. (2008), "Promoting Consumer's Participation in Virtual Brand
Communities: A New Paradigm in Branding Strategy", Journal of Marketing Communications, Vol.
14, No. 1, pp. 19-36.
Chaudhuri, A. and Holbrook, M.B. (2001), "The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect to
brand performance: the role of brand loyalty", Journal of Marketing, Vol. 65, No. 2, pp. 81-93.
Cherif, H. and Miled, B. (2013), "Are Brand Communities Influencing Brands through Co-creation? A
Cross-National Example of the Brand AXE: In France and in Tunisia", International business
research, Vol. 6, No. 9, pp. 14-29.
Christodoulides, G. (2008), "Breaking free from the industrial age paradigm of branding", Journal of
Brand Management, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 291-293.
19
de Chernatony, L. (1999), "Brand Management Through Narrowing the Gap Between Brand Identity and
Brand Reputation", Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 15, No. 1-3, pp. 157-179.
Delgado-Ballester, E. and Munuera-Alemn, J.L. (2005), "Does brand trust matter to brand equity?",
Journal of product & brand management, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 187-196.
Delgado-Ballester, E. and Munuera-Alemn, J.L. (2001), "Brand trust in the context of consumer loyalty",
European Journal of marketing, Vol. 35, No. 11/12, pp. 1238-1258.
Dessart, L., Veloutsou, C. and Morgan-Thomas, A. (2015), "Consumer engagement in online brand
communities: A social media perspective", Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 24, No. 1,
pp. 28-42.
Escalas, E.J. (2004), "Narrative Processing: Building Consumer Connections to Brands", Journal of
Consumer Psychology, Vol. 14, No. 12, pp. 168-180.
Escalas, J.E. and Bettman, J.R. (2005), "Self-construal, reference groups, and brand meaning", Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp. 378-389.
Esch, F., Langner, T., Schmitt, B.H. and Geus, P. (2006), "Are brands forever? How brand knowledge and
relationships affect current and future purchases", Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol.
15, No. 2, pp. 98-105.
Fetscherin, M., Boulanger, M., Gonalves Filho, C. and Quiroga Souki, G. (2014), "The effect of product
category on consumer brand relationships", Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 23, No.
2, pp. 78-89.
Fournier, S. (1998), "Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in consumer research",
Journal of consumer research, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 343-353.
France, C., Merrilees, B. and Miller, D. (2015), "Customer brand co-creation: a conceptual model",
Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 33, No. 6, pp. 848-864.
Fller, J. (2010), "Refining virtual co-creation from a consumer perspective", California management
review, No. 52, pp. 98-122.
Gambetti, R.C. and Graffigna, G. (2015), "Value co-creation between the inside and the outside of a
company Insights from a brand community failure", Marketing Theory, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 155-178.
Gregory, A. (2007), "Involving stakeholders in developing corporate brands: The communication

dimension", Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 23, No. 1-2, pp. 59-73.
Grnroos, C. (1994), "From marketing mix to relationship marketing: towards a paradigm shift in
marketing", Management decision, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 4-20.
20
Habibi, M.R., Laroche, M. and Richard, M. (2014), "The roles of brand community and community
engagement in building brand trust on social media", Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 37, pp.
152-161.
Hanna, V., Backhouse, C. and Burns, N.D. (2004), "Linking employee behaviour to external customer
satisfaction using quality function deployment", Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical
Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture, Vol. 218, No. 9, pp. 1167-1177.
Harris, F. and de Chernatony, L. (2001), "Corporate branding and corporate brand performance",
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35, No. 3/4, pp. 441-456.
Hatch, M.J. and Schultz, M. (2010), "Toward a theory of brand co-creation with implications for brand
governance", Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 17, No. 8, pp. 590-604.
Hatch, M.J. and Schultz, M. (2002), "The Dynamics of Organizational Identity", Human Relations, Vol. 55,
No. 8, pp. 989-1018.
Henkel, S., Tomczak, T., Heitmann, M. and Herrmann, A. (2007), "Managing brand consistent employee
behaviour: relevance and managerial control of behavioural branding", Journal of product & brand
management, Vol. 16, No. 5, pp. 310-320.
Holbrook, M.B. and Batra, R. (1987), "Assessing the role of emotions as mediators of consumer
responses to advertising", Journal of consumer research, pp. 404-420.
Hollebeek, L.D. (2011), "Demystifying customer brand engagement: Exploring the loyalty nexus", Journal
of Marketing Management, Vol. 27, No. 7-8, pp. 785-807.
Huber, F., Meyer, F. and David, A.S. (2015), "Brand love in progress the interdependence of brand love
antecedents in consideration of relationship duration", Journal of Product & Brand Management,
Vol. 24, No. 6, pp. 567-579.
Ind, N., Iglesias, O. and Schultz, M. (2013), "Building brands together", California management review,
Vol. 55, No. 3, pp. 5-26.
Johnson, M.D., Herrmann, A. and Huber, F. (2006), "The evolution of loyalty intentions", Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 70, No. 2, pp. 122-132.
Jung, N.Y., Kim, S. and Kim, S. (2014), "Influence of consumer attitude toward online brand community
on revisit intention and brand trust", Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp.
581-589.
Kaufmann, H.R. Cajthaml, M and Meier, M.M (2007), "Behavioral branding: the interdisciplinary Hilti
case ", International Journal of Management Cases, Vol. 9, No. 3/4, pp. 329-334.
Kaufmann, H.R., Loureiro, S.M.C, Basile, G. and Vrontis, D. (2012a), "The increasing dynamics between
consumers, social groups and brands", Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, Vol.
15, No. 4, pp. 404-419.
21
Kaufmann, H.R, Vrontis, D., Czinkota, M. and Hadiono, A. (2012b), "Corporate branding and
transformational leadership in turbulent times", Journal of product & brand management, Vol. 21,
No. 3, pp. 192-204.
Keller, K.L. and Lehmann, D.R. (2003), "How do brands create value?, Marketing Management, Vol. 12,
No. 3, pp. 26-31.
Langner, T., Bruns, D., Fischer, A. and Rossiter, J. (2016), "Falling in love with brands: a dynamic analysis
of the trajectories of brand love", Marketing Letters, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp 15-26.
Loureiro, S.M.C., Kaufmann, H.R. and Vrontis, D. (2012), "Brand emotional connection and loyalty",
Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 13-27.
McAlexander, J.H., Schouten, J.W. and Koenig, H.F. (2002), "Building brand community", Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 66, No. 1, pp. 38-54.
Morhart, F., Herzog, W. and Tomczak, T. (2009), "Brand-Specific Leadership: Turning Employees into
Brand Champions", Journal of Marketing, Vol. 73, No. 5, pp. 122.
Muniz Jr, A.M. and OGuinn, T.C. (2001), "Brand community", Journal of consumer research, Vol. 27, No.
4, pp. 412-432.
Park, C.W., MacInnis, D., Priester, J., Eisingerich, A. and Iacobucci, D. (2010), "Brand Attachment and
Brand Attitude Strength: Conceptual and Empirical Differentiation of Two Critical Brand Equity
Drivers", Journal of Marketing, Vol. 74, No. 6, pp. 1-17.
Payne, A., Storbacka, K., Frow, P. and Knox, S. (2009), "Co-creating brands: Diagnosing and designing the
relationship experience", Journal of Business Research, Vol. 62, No. 3, pp. 379-389.
Pl, L.R and Cceres, C., (2010), "Not always co-creation: introducing interactional co-destruction of
value in service-dominant logic", Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 24, No. 6, pp. 430-437.
Prahalad, C.K. and Ramaswamy, V. (2004), "Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value
creation", Journal of interactive marketing, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 5-14.
Schau, H.J., Muiz Jr, A.M. and Arnould, E.J. (2009), "How brand community practices create value",
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 73, No. 5, pp. 30-51.
Schifferstein, H.N. and Hekkert, P. (2011), Product experience, Elsevier, London.
Schmitt, B. (2012), "The consumer psychology of brands", Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 22, No.
1, pp. 7-17.
Skoog, M. and Sderstrm, M. (2015), "Antecedents and Outcomes of Brand Love: A qualitative study
within the Swedish clothing industry." Available at: http://www.diva-
portal.org/smash/get/diva2:841971/FULLTEXT01.pdf (accessed 12 November 2015).
22
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.
Valette-Florence, P., Guizani, H. and Merunka, D. (2011), "The impact of brand personality and sales
promotions on brand equity", Journal of Business Research, Vol. 64, No. 1, pp. 24-28.
Vargo, S.L., Maglio, P.P. and Akaka, M.A. (2008), "On value and value co-creation: A service systems and
service logic perspective", European Management Journal, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 145-152.
Vernuccio, M., Pagani, M., Barbarossa, C. and Pastore, A. (2015), "Antecedents of brand love in online
network-based communities. A social identity perspective ", Journal of Product & Brand
Management, Vol. 24, No. 7, pp. 706-719.
Wallace, E., Buil, I. and de Chernatony, L. (2014), "Consumer engagement with self-expressive brands:
brand love and WOM outcomes", Journal of product & brand management, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 33.
Wirtz, J., den Ambtman, A., Bloemer, J., Horvth, C., Ramaseshan, B., van de Klundert, J., Gurhan Canli,
Z. and Kandampully, J., 2013. Managing brands and customer engagement in online brand
communities. Journal of Service Management, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp.223-244.
Yi, Y. and Gong, T. (2013), Customer value co-creation behavior: Scale development and validation,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66, No.9, pp.1279-1284.
Yoo, B., Donthu, N. and Lee, S. (2000), "An examination of selected marketing mix elements and brand
equity", Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp. 195-211.
Zwass, V. (2010), "Co-creation: Toward a taxonomy and an integrated research perspective",

International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 11-48.
23

2

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

2

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Journal of Product & Brand Management

Exploring behavioural branding, brand love and brand co-creation

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

From user to co-creator: the need for a paradigm shift

Co-creating behaviour based on commitment

From an extensive literature review on co-creation, it occurs that:

(France et al., 2015).

development of close relationships between brand users and brand representatives.

Commitment and particularly affective commitment to a brand or a brand community, regarded as a

Figure 1: Initial Model

Figure 2: Proposed model

Based on above discussion the following propositions are formulated:

P1: Behavioural Branding positively influences Brand Love and Co-Creation.

P2. Behavioural Branding positively influences co-creation.

Further research, discussion and limitations

Gregory, A. (2007), "Involving stakeholders in developing corporate brands: The communication

Schifferstein, H.N. and Hekkert, P. (2011), Product experience, Elsevier, London.

Zwass, V. (2010), "Co-creation: Toward a taxonomy and an integrated research perspective",

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi