Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Article information:
To cite this document:
Harry A. Taute Jeremy Sierra , (2014),"Brand tribalism: an anthropological perspective", Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 23 Iss 1
pp. 2 - 15
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-06-2013-0340
Downloaded on: 10 October 2016, At: 03:05 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 65 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 3024 times since 2014*
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:135966 []
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.
Jeremy Sierra
McCoy College of Business Administration, Texas State University, San Marcos, Texas, USA
Abstract
Purpose Companies should move beyond product attribute positioning to fostering affective-laden relationships with customers, as customers often
want to feel engaged with the brand they purchase. These brand tribal members share something emotively more than mere brand ownership. As
measures of brand engagement continue to evolve, proven instruments measuring brand tribalism and studies investigating its explanatory power are
limited. The purpose of this paper is to help fill this research fissure by offering a three-study approach, leaning on Sahlins anthropological theory of
segmented lineage.
Design/methodology/approach In Study 1, the authors develop and evaluate the measurement properties of a brand tribalism scale. Using survey
data in Study 2 and Study 3, the applicability of brand tribalism on brand-response variables across two technological contexts is examined.
Findings Data drawn from ordinary brand users confirm scale validity while questioning the efficacy of communal social structures to affect brand
attitude and repurchase intentions.
Research limitations/implications Moving consumers from occasional brand users to members of their brand tribe should be one of many
company objectives. The studies here offer acumen as to why such objectives should be pursued and how they can be met.
Originality/value The data from the three studies lend insight to the importance of brand tribalism, its measurement properties, and raise issues
regarding its effect on key brand-related outcomes.
Keywords Consumer behaviour, Brand community, Scale development, Brand attitude, Brand tribe, Repurchase intentions,
Segmentary lineage theory
Paper type Research paper
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1061-0421.htm
Study 1
Item generation
Insofar as a literature search could determine, there exists just
one scale measuring and testing the strength of brand tribalism;
given its dynamic nature and importance to brand building,
this discovery was surprising. Veloutsou and Moutinhos
(2009) 16-item, five-dimension scale lays a sturdy foundation
by which brand tribalism can be evaluated. They posit that
brand tribalism dimensions include:
.
degree of fit with lifestyle;
.
passion in life;
.
reference group acceptance;
.
social visibility of the brand; and
.
collective memory.
Additionally, we turned to the literature on brand community,
brand tribalism, brand engagement, and social identity theory
for items indicative of the four tribalism components of our
scale. The preliminary 35 items consisted of seven items each
for segmentary lineage and social structure, nine items for
sense of community, and 12 items for defense of the tribe.
Our description of the sense of community dimension thus
draws from studies defining community. Muniz and OGuinn
(2001) suggest that brand communities exhibit at least three
attributes of pre-industrialized society:
1 members are conscious of a bond between themselves;
2 members share rituals and traditions; and
5
Results
Factor structure
Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using maximum likelihood
estimation (MLE) and principal components analysis (PCA)
were used to assess the factor structure of the 35 items
comprising the four-dimensional brand tribalism scale.
Results for both the MLE and PCA techniques revealed
severe cross-loadings. Thus, items from each dimension were
deleted until a robust, theoretically sound four factor solution
ensued for each reduction method. The final 16-item
instrument (see the Appendix) (three items each for lineage
and social structure, and five items each for defense and
community) explained 70.55 percent of the variance, and
revealed high factor loadings for both the MLE (0.615-0.887)
and PCA (0.505-0.847) procedures with no meaningful crossloadings.
Using this four-dimensional, 16-item instrument, a
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) measurement model was
then estimated with LISREL 8.72. The average variance
extracted (AVE) for each dimension exceeds 0.50, which
provides evidence for convergent validity (see Table I). Also,
the AVE for each tribal construct is greater than the squared
correlations across the constructs (see F and F2 matrices in
Table I), which provides evidence for discriminant validity
(Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Estimation of the measurement
model produced the following goodness-of-fit statistics:
x2(98) 431.14 ( p 0.00), comparative fit index
(CFI) 0.97, non-normed fit index (NNFI) 0.97,
goodness-of-fit index (GFI) 0.89, root mean square error
of approximation (RMSEA) 0.088, and standardized root
mean square residual (SRMR) 0.048. Collectively, these fit
statistics provide evidence of good model fit and valid
construct measures.
Methodology
Data collection procedure
Undergraduate students (n 442) at a business school
located in the Southwest USA were solicited as respondents.
At the onset of the questionnaire, participants were asked to
indicate their favorite brand. While thinking of this brand,
they answered seven-point Likert scale items (anchored from
1 strongly disagree to 7 strongly agree) for the brand
tribalism instrument we developed, which captured the
following four dimensions:
1 lineage LINEAGE (bound together) (seven items);
2 social structure SOCIAL (different from others) (seven
items);
3 sense of community COMMUN (nine items); and
4 defense of tribe DEFENSE (12 items).
6
LINEAGE
LINEAGE1
LINEAGE2
LINEAGE3
SOCIAL1
SOCIAL2
SOCIAL3
DEFENSE1
DEFENSE2
DEFENSE3
DEFENSE4
DEFENSE5
COMMUN1
COMMUN2
COMMUN3
COMMUN4
COMMUN5
0.75
0.87
0.74
SOCIAL
DEFENSE
COMMUN
Item reliabilities
Delta (d)
0.78
0.79
0.84
0.86
0.76
0.562
0.757
0.548
0.593
0.740
0.593
0.504
0.672
0.608
0.578
0.608
0.608
0.624
0.706
0.740
0.578
0.438
0.243
0.452
0.407
0.260
0.407
0.496
0.328
0.392
0.422
0.392
0.392
0.376
0.294
0.260
0.422
0.77
0.86
0.77
0.71
0.82
0.78
0.76
0.78
62.23
64.18
59.42
65.11
F matrix
LINEAGE
SOCIAL
DEFENSE
COMMUN
1.00
0.70
0.62
0.72
1.00
0.66
0.60
1.00
0.74
1.00
F2 matrix
LINEAGE
SOCIAL
DEFENSE
COMMUN
1.00
0.49
0.38
0.51
1.00
0.43
0.36
1.00
0.54
1.00
Methodology
Scale descriptions
The questionnaire contained items from the developed brand
tribalism scales:
.
segmentary lineage (LINEAGE; three items);
.
social structure (SOCIAL; three items);
.
defense of the tribe (DEFENSE; five items); and
.
sense of community (COMMUN; five items).
H3.
Results
Factor structure
Both PCA with Varimax rotation and MLE with direct
Oblimin rotation were used to assess the factor structure of
the 28 items comprising the seven scales. The resulting seven
factor solutions, accounting for 79.76 percent of the variance,
for each procedure revealed robust factor loadings (i.e. PCA:
0.477-0.914; MLE: 0.641-0.944) with no meaningful crossloadings. Reliability coefficients ranged from 0.853 to 0.949.
MANOVA
MANOVA was used to test response differences between the
Windows and Apple users collectively. As posited,
respondents in the Apple group yielded more positive
responses toward each of the studied constructs, supporting
H1-H3 (see Table II). The MANOVA exhibited a positive
overall effect (i.e. Hotellings T2 0.606, F(7, 166) 14.37,
p , 0.01, Wilks l 0.623, h2 0.377, POWER 1.0).
Specifically, Apple users showed more favorable responses
for (H1(a)) lineage, (H1(b)) social structure, (H1(c)) defense
of the tribe, (H1(d)) sense of community, (H2) brand
attitude, and (H3) repurchase intentions.
H6.
Apple
M 5.17
(SD 1.14)
H1(b) (SOCIAL)
M 4.68
(SD 1.40)
H1(c) (DEFENSE)
M 4.68
(SD 1.42)
H1(d) (COMMUN) M 3.91
(SD 1.60)
H2 (AB)
M 6.53
(SD 0.71)
H3 (PurINT)
M 6.45
(SD 1.11)
H1(a) (LINEAGE)
Windows
Significance
h2
M 3.94
(SD 1.08)
M 3.51
(SD 1.16)
M 3.45
(SD 1.20)
M 2.91
(SD 1.14)
M 5.50
(SD 0.86)
M 5.71
(SD 1.04)
0.231
Methodology
Data collection procedure
Smart phone users at a business school located in the
mountain West USA, who did not participate in Study 1 or
Study 2, were solicited as respondents. At the onset of the
questionnaire, participants were asked to indicate their
smartphone (iPhone and Android were most readily noted);
subsequently, they answered seven-point rating scale items for
the same indicators and studied constructs used in Study 2
about their phone.
0.167
0.174
0.110
0.288
Results
MANOVA
MANOVA was used to test response differences between the
iPhone and Android users collectively. Differences between
0.104
Factor structure
Using LISREL 8.72, a CFA measurement model for both the
iPhone and Android data was estimated with the 24 items
comprising the four scales. Regarding the iPhone data, the
AVE for each construct (i.e. LINEAGE 72.91 percent,
S OCIAL 71.20 percent, D EFENSE 60.35 percent,
COMMUN 70.74 percent, A B 88.38 percent, and
PurINT 87.08 percent) exceeds 50 percent; also, the AVE
for each construct (aside from DEFENSE 0.6035 and F2 of
LINEAGE and SOCIAL 0.6561) is greater than the squared
correlations between each construct and the other constructs.
Estimation of the iPhone measurement model produced the
following goodness-of-fit statistics: x2(237df) 1,016.02
( p 0.00), CFI 0.93, NNFI 0.92, GFI 0.75,
RMSEA 0.11, and SRMR 0.054.
For the Android data, the AVE for each construct
(i.e. LINEAGE 73.09 percent, SOCIAL 70.21 percent,
DEFENSE 65.65 percent, C OMMUN 78.16 percent,
AB 87.46 percent, and PurINT 87.91 percent) exceeds
50 percent; also, the AVE for each construct
(aside from LINEAGE 0.7309, S OCIAL 0.7021, and
and
F2
of
LINEAGE
and
DEFENSE 0.6565
SOCIAL 0.7921 and, DEFENSE and F2 of COMMUN
and D EFENSE 0.6889) is greater than the squared
correlations between each construct and the other
constructs. Estimation of the Android measurement model
produced the following goodness-of-fit statistics:
x2(237df) 905.42 ( p 0.00), CFI 0.95, NNFI 0.94,
GFI 0.74, RMSEA 0.11, and SRMR 0.045.
Discussion
Essential to the development and longevity of customer-brand
relationships, brand tribes fuse zealous members through
social experiences; as such, tribal-linked procurement can be
ascribed to their social value (Cova and Cova, 2002). Here,
each tribe is a culture unto itself; members have their own
language, gatherings, and customs, rejecting the norms
imposed by other cultures. In this sense, brand tribes can be
characterized as:
.
being sustained admirers of a brand;
.
experiencing similar traditions;
.
sharing a common kinship; and
Managerial implications
As a means to feel part of something bigger than themselves,
research and the marketplace both show that consumers may
opt to join, be involved with, and advocate brand tribes.
Although the task of pinpointing reasons why some brands are
able to generate a community-based and tribal-like consumer
following seems difficult if not impossible to understand, our
11
References
Aaker, J. (1997), Dimensions of brand personality, Journal
of Marketing Research, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 347-356.
Acosta, P.M. and Devasagayam, R. (2010), Brand cult:
extending the notion of brand communities, Marketing
Management Journal, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 165-176.
Adjei, M.T., Noble, S.M. and Noble, C.H. (2010), The
influence of C2C communications in online brand
communities on customer purchase behavior, Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 38 No. 5,
pp. 634-653.
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.
Arnould, E.J., Price, L.L. and Zinkhan, G. (2004),
Consumers, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
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.
Barry, T.E. (2002), In defense of the hierarchy of effects: a
rejoinder to Weilbacher, Journal of Advertising Research,
Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 44-47.
Batra, R., Ahuvia, A. and Bagozzi, R.P. (2012), Brand love,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 76 No. 2, pp. 1-16.
Belk, R.W. and Tumbat, G. (2005), The cult of Macintosh:
consumption, markets, and culture, Vol. 8 No. 3,
pp. 205-217.
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. 5,
pp. 52-68.
Carlson, B.D., Suter, T.A. and Brown, T.J. (2008), Social
versus psychological brand community: the role of
Further reading
McAlexander, J.H. and Schouten, J.W. (1998), Brandfests:
servicescapes for the cultivation of brand equity,
Servicescapes: The Concept of Place in Contemporary
Markets, American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL,
pp. 377-402.
Lineage (a 5 0.790)
.
(LINEAGE1) Compared with other brands, people who
own or use (brand) share more than just the product or
service use.
.
(LINEAGE2) Owners or users of (brand) have a bond.
.
(LINEAGE3) (Brand) owners or users are bound
together.
Social (a 5 0.832)
.
(SOCIAL1) People who own or use (brand) are unique
from those owning or using other brands in the same
market.
.
(SOCIAL2) I identify uniquely with others who own or
use (brand).
.
(SOCIAL3) People who own or use (brand) differentiate
themselves from non-owners or non-users of (brand).
Defense of tribe (a 5 0.863)
.
(DEFENSE1) Whenever (brand) is put down, I react
strongly.
.
(DEFENSE2) I often disagree whenever someone prefers
a competitive brand to (brand).
.
(DEFENSE3) I wont own or use any competitor of
(brand).
.
(DEFENSE4) (Brand) fits me personally in a way no
other brand will.
.
(DEFENSE5) Owners or users of (brand) get it;
non-owners or non-users not so much.
Sense of community (a 5 0.890)
.
(COMMUN1) The friendships I have with other (brand)
owners or users mean a lot to me. *
.
(COMMUN2) If other (brand) owners or users planned
something, Id think of it as something we would do,
rather than something they would do. *
.
(COMMUN3) I see myself as part of the (brand)
community. *
.
(COMMUN4) When the opportunity presents itself, I
refer to other owners or users of (brand) as us or we.
.
(COMMUN5) I feel a sense of co-ownership with
(brand).
(Notes: Items measured on a seven-point Likert scale from
1 strongly disagree to 7 strongly agree; asterisked items
taken from Algesheimer et al., 2005)
14
15