Whether you are aware of it or not, consumers form relationships with your brand. This happens because as human beings we form relationships while simply living our lives. We need other people for everything we do or experience – in cooperation with other people we create, we enjoy the results together or other people are the reason for our activity. To such extent relationships are part of how we exist that we transfer that mechanism to unanimated objects such as brands.

If forming relationship with your brand underlies the process of its usage, it is quite important to understand what these relationships entail, what are their characteristics, e.g.: Is there emotion or they are based on simple exchange of benefits? Have consumers initiated them on their own or brand usage was somehow imposed? Are the interactions friendly or hostile? Do consumers consider them to be long-term or short-lived? Is there commitment on the part of the consumer? Who has the upper hand in the relations? Etc.

A brand forms different types of relationships with its consumers. Which types predominate? Ideally it is preferable that friendly, deep and emotional relationships predominate, in which consumer are committed to the brand and depend on it. These types of relations are difficult to end. But there are also relationships in the grey zone of indifference, in which brands are easily replaceable. They are the ones that usually predominate in a category. In our research of 5120 consumer-brand relationships 29% are emotional and friendly, 5% are hostile and 66% are functional with little emotion, some friendlier than others, all easy for the consumer to end.

The effective brand strategy depends on the type of relationship consumers have with the brand. In a long-term committed relationship e.g. consumers need surprises and variety and expect their loyalty to be rewarded. In a friendly and less emotionally vested relationship, with less commitment to the brand, the consumer uses other brands as well – the brand should be reliable and predictable, when the consumer returns to it. For consumers in a distanced, unemotional relationship with the brand you need to establish relevance and personal connection, to augment the brand experience with associations and images that link the brand to important life themes and objectives. In cases of hostility you need to offer immediate compensation and start to rebuild trust.

Understanding the type of interactions consumers have with your brand gives you the leverage to connect in the most effective and lasting manner.

It is well accepted that through brands consumers express themselves.When using a brand, the qualities and image, associated with it, attach to the consumer, augmenting his or hers perception of themselves. Using a brand expresses who you are or who you want to be.

Consumers often prefer brands that project images similar to their own self-image. Additionally, individuals have the tendency to enhance their image in the perception of other people. Products and brands are used as instruments of symbolic communication in social interactions to project the desired image.

In theory, consumer-brand identification is an underlying factor of a strong relationship with the brand and loyalty to that brand. In our research we wanted to confirm whether the consumer-brand identification plays a role in building the relationship with the brand, in establishing loyalty and willingness to pay a higher price.

Also, we wanted to understand whether the consumer-brand identification is an equally important driver across different product categories.

The research covered 10 industries/categories: Airlines, Automotive, Cosmetics, Financial Services, Food, Retailers, Soft Drinks, Alcoholic beverages, Technologies and Telecommunications

We studied different levels at which brands may connect with consumers:

• Consumer-Brand Identification:Self-Identity, Group Identity, Common values, Aspirations
• Experiences and emotions
• Utility: Product quality, Instrumental to achieve objectives

Our test model of Consumer-Brand Identification includes four expressions – the first is self-identity, when the consumer finds similarities between himself or herself and the image of the brand. We also tested group identification – whether using the brand creates the feeling that you belong to a particular group. The values the consumer shares with the brand is another variant we tested. And the fourth expression of Consumer–Brand Identification is on aspirational level – whether the brand expresses the lifestyle one aspires to.

Not all four were equally important in determining the relationship with the brand: self-identity, followed by common values with the brand played a role in more categories. Also, there were differences across categories: self-identity determines the relationship with the brand in telecommunications and retail, food and soft drinks, while group identity has shown importance in telecommunication and alcoholic beverages only. The common values of the brand and the consumer are a driver for consumer-brand relationship in automotive, financial services and alcoholic beverages. And finally, the aspirational level of the consumer-brand identification works in cosmetics and retail.

Overall the consumer-brand identification is a stronger driver than experience and utilitarian factors (quality mostly) for building a relationship with the brand for airlines, alcoholic beverages, automotive and retail.

When it comes to paying a higher price, group identity and aspirations are active across more categories. Group identity determines the willingness to pay a higher price for airlines, financial services, retail and soft drinks. The aspiration towards a certain lifestyle determines the willingness to pay more in automotive, food, cosmetics and technology. Common values with the brand are important in financial services, telecommunications and alcoholic beverages. Self-identity is a driver in only cosmetics and telecommunications.

It is very interesting to see that Consumer-Brand Identification determines overall the willingness to pay a higher price more than experience & emotions and utilitarian factors in all of the tested industries except fmcg.

Loyalty (measured as purchase intention) seems less influenced by the Consumer-Brand Identification. Utilitarian factors and quality in particular are a stronger driver for building loyalty among the tested factors.

In the relatively short history of marketing we have seen the wheel to make a full circle.

In the beginning brands were seen as part of a desirable world that could appear more attractive than the real one. The symbolic meanings the brand added to consumers’ lives meant more than any functional advantage. Advertisements were fairy tales that opened the gates to a colourful, brilliant and alluring place.

For years on consumers unquestionably embraced brands, making them part of their lives, habits and memories.

But the love story is now over. Consumers started to evaluate, to consider possibilities and look for validation. We are seeing how the brand-consumer relationship is turning around.

As consumer power grows, we are seeing brands earth grounded in the world of objects. They become a product of reality, which makes them liable to validation. Brand promises are questioned. To say you are good for me is not enough, you have to prove it.

On the other hand, in the times of their prime, some brands made promises they could not keep. As disappointing experiences accumulated more and more consumers became consciously aware of the possibility brand promises to be just ungrounded claims. Consumer disappointment eroded the trust in these brands.

In the background the ways and rules of the world we live in changed rapidly and significantly. Internet made things accessible and people powerful. Consumers acquired new tools of social interaction. Participation in groups and communities, reading of comments, writing of posts – all this make one opinion heard by many.

The spirit of time we live in brings about sharing, openness and fast communication. The new culture is dialogical.

What this means to the brand manager is that you still have a story to tell, but your brand story is not your exclusive creation. Your consumers have a voice and they use it: to add value to the brand or … to discredit it.

It is of crucial importance to get into an engaging dialogue with the consumer.

Customer knowledge and living the consumer experience is the basis. Research methodologies that will help you to enter into the consciousness of people who buy (or do not buy) your brand are ethnography, creative groups and other qualitative methods. Having your online research community, where you can listen, observe and engage in a dialogue with consumers is a new way you may want to try as well.

Next, is the constant adaptation of product offering. We live in times when consumers state their individual needs. And they have got ideas! Use them for creating new products, for refining the existing portfolio.. Be ready to personalize as much as possible.

And third, the authenticity of communication. Consider the new reality: the brand is seen as equal to the consumer and you are having a one-to-one dialogue.

Fairness and honesty have never been more important. A wrong label or the wrong ingredient on the label gets noticed. The wrong sentence in the small font gets noticed. News circulates wide and fast.

It takes a different route to connect with the conscious and active consumer and a totally changed perspective.