This document discusses relational branding, a new paradigm for modeling consumer-brand relationships (CBR). It argues that previous models based on interpersonal relationships are imperfect for CBR and that a psychological model based on relational psychology is more appropriate. Relational psychology views relationships as influencing identity formation rather than innate drives. The document presents a study that identifies five universal brand relationships (reinforcement, identification, role model, self-differentiating, and playful) and finds these relationships influence financial metrics like market capitalization through building relationship equity and a stable customer franchise.

1. Relational Branding – A New
Paradigm for Modeling Marketplace
Effects of CBR
Max Blackston
CBR Conference May 2013
Boston, Mass.

2. What is the Most Appropriate Model for
Consumer-Brand Relationships ?
• Almost invariably, models of interpersonal relationships have been
adopted as the paradigm for consumer-brand relationships. This is a
logical extension from anthropomorphizing brands and attributing
brands with personality. But it raises some issues; such as which
model of interpersonal relationships is most appropriate ? And within
any given taxonomy of interpersonal relationships, can all the taxa be
applied to CBR ?
• There are also measurement problems associated with the
interpersonal model. Although the analyst may observe close
analogies between the ways in which consumers relate to brands
and distinct interpersonal relationship types, consumers themselves
do not unambiguously recognize these analogies. The ways in which
people describe their relationships with brands are highly
idiosyncratic, leading to imprecise and unreliable measurement.

3. What is the Most Appropriate Model for
Consumer-Brand Relationships ?
• We argue that the most appropriate model for CBR is a psychological
one, rather than a sociological one.
• We believe however that there is a more appropriate alternative to
the Freudian model (“drive” theory) which has – explicitly or implicitly
- been the basis for much consumer psychology.
• We show that a theory of Consumer Brand Relationships emerges
organically from the Relational Psychology model, based on object-
relations theory, without having to make a special case for them.
• We have developed a simple measurement system which does not
require consumers to understand and/or agree with the analyst’s
construct of relationships.

4. Relational vs Freudian
Psychology
• External relationships – with
other people and with things –
are paralleled by psychic
representations of these
relationships within the mind
• A personality is in fact a
composite structure which has
been formed and built up out of
countless never-ending
influences and exchanges
between ourselves and others
• Behavior and attitudes are
caused by basic “Drives” which
are innate and unchanging
elements of the personality.
• The relevant characteristics of
the personality remain the
same – whatever the
relationship.

5. Relational Branding
• Relational psychology, in reformulating the concept of self in
personality development, also reformulates the concept of brand.
• A Freudian “driven” brand is always the same, irrespective of the
nature of its consumer-partner; a Relational brand, on the other
hand, is a variable outcome of its interactions with its consumers.
• Relational Psychology recognizes how inanimate relationship
partners -- so-called “Transitional Objects” -- may be invested with
the same type of characteristics (personality, motivations, imagined
behaviors, etc.) as animate ones.
• The Brand is a “Transitional Object”, represented in the individual’s
psyche simultaneously as both the object and source of
emotions, feelings and behaviors.

6. How do you access Consumer-Brand Relationships ?
How do you define their parameters ?
How do you measure them reliably ?
• Understanding Brand Relationships is just like understanding any
other relationship.
• Observe the attitudes and behaviors that the relationship gives rise
to, and from those deduce the nature of the relationship.
• In the Consumer-Brand Relationship - as in all relationships – there
are two participants, two sets of attitudes that are being
expressed, two sets of behaviors that have to be observed before
any deductions can be made.
• We need to listen to both sides of “the conversation”

7. The Doctor-Patient Relationship – one side of the
conversation: “What do you think of the doctor?”
Professional
Caring
Capable
Funny

8. The Doctor-Patient Relationship – the other side of
the conversation: ”What does the doctor think of
you?”
Professional
Caring
Capable
Funny
"The doctor thinks
I'm an old hypochondriac"

9. Listening to both sides of the conversation
There is a dialogue between brand and consumer going on inside the
consumer’s mind. In most research we elicit and measure only one
side of that dialogue – the one that reflects consumers’ attitudes
toward the brand - brand image. But there is a second side to this
dialogue going on, which reflects the brand’s attitudes toward the
consumer, which are a measure of how someone feels as a result of
interaction with the brand. Essentially, we need to ask the consumer
not only what s/he thinks of the brand, but also what the brand thinks
of him or her.
• Not just Brand Perceptions - what you tell consumers about your
brand – but also Brand Attitudes - what you make your brand tell
consumers about themselves
• Not just Brand Use - what the consumer does with your brand- but
also Brand Experiences - what your brand does with the consumer.

10. Proof of Concept Study

11. Proof of Concept Study* –
Methodology 1
• Included 48 brands in 8 different product
categories
• Internet Survey of over 1500 respondents
• 3 matched representative cells each
evaluating 16 brands
*conducted by

12. Proof of Concept Study* –
Methodology 2
• Questionnaire
• Familiarity
• Brand Image and Personality
• Brand Experiences (Brands’ Attitudes)
• Brand “Touch” points (Advertising, Websites, Social
Media, etc)
• Brand Usage and Consideration
• Overall brand evaluations
• Other brand-related behavior
*conducted by

13. Proof of Concept Study* –
Methodology 3
• Included 30 “mono brands” for which
financial data available from public
sources:
• Market Capitalization
• Sales
• Operating Profit
• P/E Ratio
• Operating Margin
*conducted by

14. Objectives
• to measure the influence of consumers’ relationships, on
the one hand, and customer franchise on the financial value
of these brands, as reflected in the various measures.
• To examine the effects of brand relationships on customer
franchise measures – acquisition, growth, maintenance .

15. Brand Perceptions
Brand
Relationship is
defined by the
combination of a
specific brand
image with a
specific attitude
of the brand;
Brand Relationships are defined by the
combination of Brand Perceptions and
Brand Attitudes or Experiences

16. Brand Perception Factors
Relaxed and Stylish
Fun
Cool
Easy
Friendly
Stylish
Different
Positive Differentiation
Distinctive
Unique
Charisma
Dynamic
Excitingly Innovative
Leader
Progressive
Functionality
Performs well
Gives Satisfaction
Emotional Values
Love it
Fits my life
COPYRIGHT 2012 BRANDYIELD CONSULTING LLC

17. Brand Attitude/Experience Factors
• Mentoring
Challenges Me To Think
Differently
Teaches Me
Inspires Me
Shares My Values
• There For Me
Appreciates My Business
Is Recommended By People I
Care About
Responds To My Needs
Has My Interests At Heart
• Pleasure
Brings Back Good Memories
Provides A Little Treat For Me
Excites Me
• Self-Expression
Simplifies My Life
Helps Me To Express Myself
Frees Me To Be Myself
• Self-Esteem
Makes Me Look Good To
Others
Makes Me Feel Good About
Myself
COPYRIGHT 2012 BRANDYIELD CONSULTING LLC

18. A Brand Relationship is defined by the conjunction of one
dimension of brand perception (image, personality, attributes…)
and a dimension of brand attitude or experience
Brand Attitudes/Experiences
Brand
Perceptions
Self-
Esteem
Self-
Expression
Mentoring There For
Me
Pleasure
Performance/
Satisfaction
Emotional
Attachment
Charisma
Positive
Differentiation
Relaxed &
Stylish

19. • In theory, the number of possible brand relationships is determined
by the combinatorial possibilities of the two sets of component
factors. In practice, of course, not all combinations have a relational
logic to them. Beyond that, we further screened possible
relationships for emergent properties, that is relationships that have
properties that neither of the separate components do. In practice
this meant that we were looking for relationships which have
incremental predictive power over that of both of the separate
components.

20. These 5 Universal Brand Relationships have been identified across
multiple brands and categories with emergent properties: the
combination of the two components has an effect greater than the sum
of their parts
Brand Attitudes/Experiences
Brand
Perceptions
Self-
Esteem
Self-
Expression
Mentoring There For
Me
Pleasure
Performance/
Satisfaction
Emotional
Attachment
Charisma
Positive
Differentiation
Relaxed &
Stylish
Reinforce
ment
Identification
Role Model
Self-
Differentiating
Playful

21. Universal Brand Relationships
• Reinforcement
• Identification
• Role Model
• Self-
Differentiating
• Playful
• The brand is seen as having superior performance and
providing heightened customer satisfaction (brand perception).
Use or purchase of the brand makes the customer feel better
and smarter (brand experience) – in his/her own eyes and in
those of others – strengthening the attachment to the brand.
• There is a very strong affection for the brand and (or because) it
is experienced as expressing the customer’s own values and
aspirations.
• The brand is admired for its charisma – a standard of leadership
and innovation, which the customer – by allying him/herself with
the brand - is invited to share in.
• The brand is seen as distinctive and unique – but not in a distant
or iconoclastic way. The brand’s difference is inclusive of the
customer, who therefore feels distinctive and unique too.
• The brand is liked for its relaxed style; it demands nothing of the
consumer other than to experience the pleasure it gives.

22. Brand Relationships are Not Additive
• Although an additive model is often a satisfactory, scientifically
parsimonious, way of creating a construct, it does not work for
Consumer Brand Relationships.
• Consumers’ Brand Perceptions and Brands’ Attitudes are qualitatively
different phenomena, and – like “apples and pears” - they need to be
kept distinct.
• A Brand Relationship is a two-dimensional construct, defined as the
resultant vector of the two components of the relationship.
• Visually, we compare Brands’ Relationships using a Brand
Relationship Map

23. Brand Attitude/
Brand Experience
Brand Perceptions
Brand
Relationship
(x,y)
x
y
A Brand Relationship is defined by the
combination of a specific brand image with a
specific attitude of the brand;
The strength of the relationship is a function
of the strength of the two components.
But that function is not a simple additive one.

24. Point A (“Bad” Image, “Good” Attitude)
is not equivalent to
Point B (“Good” Image, “Bad” Attitude).
x
y
A
B
A = B
Brand Attitude/
Brand Experience
Brand Perceptions
Brand
Relationship
(x,y)

25. Brand Relationship Maps - Examples of Two of the
Universal Brand Relationships
• Reinforcement is composed of perceptions of strong product
performance combined with the experience of the brand
making me look good – to myself and to other people.
– Top reinforcement brands are Pantene, L’Oreal, J&J, Amazon and
Google. While both components of the relationship are important,
hair care brands do it more by enhancing self-esteem.
• Role Model, combines perceptions of a charismatic brand –
a leader, an innovator – with the experience of feeling
mentored by the brand – challenged and encouraged to
reach further.
– Many corporate brands – like GE, 3M, Facebook and Amazon -
are seen as leaders and innovators, but only Apple and Google
manage to combine those perceptions with that key personal
experience.

26. John Frieda
Clairol
Dove Hair Care
Head & Shoulders
Herbal Essences
L'Oreal
Pantene
3M
BP
Chevron
Exxon Mobil
General Electric
Johnson & Johnson
Pfizer
Barack Obama
Mitt Romney
Best Buy
Home Depot
JC Penney
Lowes
Sears
Target
WalMart
amazon.com
homedepot.com
jcpenney.com
lowes.com
walmart.com
American Express
Discover
MasterCard
Visa
Bank of America
Citibank
Goldman Sachs
JP Morgan Chase
WellsFargo
Applebees
Denny's
Outback SteakhouseFriendly's
Olive Garden
Red Robin
Apple
Facebook
Google
LinkedIN
YouTube
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40
S
e
l
f
-
E
s
t
e
e
m
Performance/Satisfaction
“Reinforcement” Relationship

27. John FriedaClairol
Dove Hair Care
Head & ShouldersHerbal EssencesL'Oreal
Pantene
3M
BP
Exxon Mobil
General Electric
Johnson & Johnson
Pfizer
Barack Obama
Mitt Romney Best Buy
Home Depot
JC Penney
Lowes
Sears
Target
WalMart
amazon.com
homedepot.com
jcpenney.com
lowes.com
walmart.com
American Express
Discover
MasterCard
Visa
Bank of AmericaCitibank
JP Morgan Chase
WellsFargo
Applebees
Outback Steakhouse
Friendly's
Olive Garden
Red Robin
Apple
Facebook
Google
LinkedIN
YouTube
0.05
0.07
0.09
0.11
0.13
0.15
0.17
0.19
0.21
0.23
0.25
0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50
M
e
n
t
o
r
i
n
g
Charisma
"RoleModel" - The brand is admired for its charisma– a standardof
leadershipand innovation, which the customer – by allying him/herself with
the brand - is also invited to reach.
“
“Role Model” Relationship

28. Brand Relationships & Product Categories
• It is clear that there is a strong product category effect
determining the type of relationships people have with brands
– as well as the variation between individual brands. The
following chart shows the predominant relationship type for
several different product categories.
– As would be expected from the brand relationship map, in hair care
Reinforcement represents over 40% of the strongest brand
relationships.
– Identification is a major relationship principally in credit cards, and to a
lesser extent in retailing – both mass market and on-line.
– Role Model plays a big part in relationships with corporate brands and,
as we have seen, with digital technology brands like Apple and
Google.
– Finally, Playful represents the predominant relationship with nearly
50% of casual dining brands.

29. Predominant Relationship Type among Brand Users (by Category)
40.7
25.6
31.7
20.8 20.6
27.7
25.2
16.4 16.9
14.5
17.7
13.7
21.9 24.0
29.3
17.2
8.8
19.9
13.0
30.6 27.9
18.2
18.3
18.3
24.3
6.4
26.8
12.7
16.3 16.3
13.7
15.2
15.5
21.5
23.8
17.1
19.1
9.8 10.4
25.3
21.9
9.2
11.8
44.6
19.3
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Entertaining/Playful
Self-Differentiating
RoleModel
Identification
Reinforcement

30. Brand Relationships
Create Financial Value

31. Brand Perceptions$Financial &
Market Returns
Key to unlocking the financial value
of a branded business
Decode the Brand Relationships
that build brand equity and grow
the customer franchise.

32. 6.4%
9.0%
14.8%
32.8%
37.0%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
Entertaining/Playful
Role Model
Self-Differentiating
Reinforcement
Identification
Relative Importance of Brand Relationships in determining
Relationship Equity (all categories and brands)

33. Relationship Equity and Stable Franchise Size are both very significant
Influences on Sales to Market Cap. multiple.
Relationship
Equity
Stable
franchise
R2=.42
Market Cap.
/Sales
.48
.43
Stable Franchise is defined as the percentage
of customers saying they use the brand regularly,
less the percentage sayingthey do so only if there
is no alternative.

34. Actual Market Cap. Is a function of Relationship Equity, Operating Profit
and Stable Franchise Size
Relationship
Equity
Operating
Profit
Stable
franchise
R2=.86
Market
Cap.
.14
.89
.32
-.22
The negative correlation between Relationship Equity
and Operating Profit reflects the fact that there is a
trade-off between investment in the brand and the
quarterly or yearly earnings statement. Nothing comes
without a cost.

35. Brand Perceptions
Acquisition Growth
MaintenanceRetention
to examine the influence of
brand relationships on customer
franchise, we have to break
the latter down into its
component parts

36. Influence of Brand Relationships on Franchise
Acquisition
4 of the Universal Brand Relationships contribute significantly to trial consideration among non-
users
Entertaining
/Playful
Identification
Reinforcement
Self-
Differentiating
0.54
0.48
0.38
0.22
Acquisitions

37. Influence of Brand Relationships on Franchise Maintenance
A different combination of relationships are significant influencers of brand preference among users
Reinforcement
Role Model
0.24
0.10
Maintenance
Identification
0.16

38. Conclusions -1
• The use of Relational Psychology (object-relations theory) as a
model has the advantage of not requiring “special-pleading” for its
application to Consumer Brand Relationships.
• Brands can legitimately be considered as Transitional Objects, in just
the same way as all the other parts of people and things that we
carry around with us in our heads, and which contribute to our own
personality.

39. Conclusions -2
• Brand relationships are not readily accessible by direct means.
Because they are so inextricably linked with the individual
personality, they are often not susceptible either to articulation by
analogy with interpersonal relationships or to an unequivocal
decoding.
• The nature of brand relationships – just like any other relationships –
can best be deduced from observing the attitudes and behaviors they
give rise to. There are two sets of such attitudes and behaviors that
result from the brand relationship – the consumer’s and the brand’s -
both of which are accessed from the consumer.

40. Conclusions -3
• Brands’ attitudes (or brand experiences) provide what has often been
the missing link between brand image and a complete definition of
consumer-based brand equity. Brand Relationship Equity – derived
from brand image and brand experience - is a significant contributor
- along with the size and stability of the brand’s customer franchise -
to the financial value of the brand.
• Brand Relationships are also a significant influence on the
development of brands’ franchises – although the link is often time-
lagged. Thus, over the long term, brand relationships contribute both
directly and indirectly to the financial value of a brand.