I may be a twin but I’m one of a kind

Abstract

Purpose – The aim of this paper is to critically review the most significant writings on “two” constructs that have quickly acquired the status of “important marketing topics”; that is, brand attachment (BA) and brand love (BL). Design/methodology/approach – A profound and parallel inspection of highly influential articles along with ensuing essays by the same single authors is performed. Findings – This review reveals that: hardly a year goes by without some reinventions or retouching of these constructs’ conceptual characteristics; there are several striking similarities between them; the politics of marketing theory are at work in keeping these constructs away from each other; the literature under scrutiny not only suffers from amnesia, but also from some severe schizophrenic symptoms; and that BA and BL are nothing more than the same core knowledge product offered under different brand names. Research limitations/implications – This review is limited to considering the constructs of BA and BL. Originality/value – Because the literature on BA and BL has been essentially empirical, this paper has the potential to add a compulsory conceptual component to it. It also has the potential of instigating discussions, debates and, in due course, a deeper understanding of these “two” constructs.

The role of emotional structures in the relationship between satisfaction and brand loyalty

“…The point discussed in this study is the coexistence of two variables of brand emotional attachment and brand love as mediator variables on the path of being satisfied with the brand to being loyal to it, since there is no consensus in the literature about the similarity or differentiation of these two constructs. A number of researchers have emphasized that emotional brand attachment and brand love are similar concepts (Albert et al, 2009;Carroll & Ahuvia, 2006;Moussa, 2015;Thomson et al, 2005).For example, Albert et al (2009) contend that the proposed scale by Thomson et al (2005) deals more with the love construct than the attachment construct. In particular, the conceptualization of "attachment" integrates here the dimension of "passion", and only the type of word used is different.…”

Examining Customer–Brand Relationships: A Critical Approach to Empirical Models on Brand Attachment, Love, and Engagement

“…Three related notions were identified in the literature survey: emotional attachment, brand love, and customer engagement. Criticism regarding recent consumer-brand relationship concepts in the marketing literature, especially in the case of brand love (Rossiter 2012;Moussa 2015), highlights the importance of establishing the boundaries between attachment, love, and engagement. This conceptual delimitation is relevant, since the different terms may constitute either antecedents or consequences of different conceptual models that have been researched separately except for four recent studies (Bergkvist and Bech-Larsen 2010;Wallace et al 2014;Sarkar and Sreejesh 2014;Vernuccio et al 2015).…”

“…For Moussa (2015), the concepts of brand love and brand attachment are not only composed of the same constituent elements, but are the same concept, being both "the two facets of the same single penny" (p. 79). According to this author, the two terms are distinctly delimited from a non-stop race between academics who have transferred concepts from interpersonal relationship theories into the branding literature as a consequence of the "publish or perish" mechanism, so that hardly a year goes by without some reinventions or retouching of the proposed conceptualizations for both.…”

Customer Loyalty and Brand Management

“…Three related notions were identified in the literature survey: emotional attachment, brand love, and customer engagement. Criticism regarding recent consumer-brand relationship concepts in the marketing literature, especially in the case of brand love (Rossiter 2012;Moussa 2015), highlights the importance of establishing the boundaries between attachment, love, and engagement. This conceptual delimitation is relevant, since the different terms may constitute either antecedents or consequences of different conceptual models that have been researched separately except for four recent studies (Bergkvist and Bech-Larsen 2010; Wallace et al 2014;Sarkar and Sreejesh 2014;Vernuccio et al 2015).…”