MAR
WILEJ
RIGHT
BATCH
Top of text
Children’s Relationships
with Brands: “True Love” or
“One-Night” Stand?
Top of CT
Mindy F. Ji
Texas A&M University
ABSTRACT
Group and individual interviews were conducted to examine
relationships developed between children and brands in the family
setting. Children’s stories about brands suggest that they develop
relationships with a wide range of brands and these relationships
are imbedded in the social environment where children live and
grow. Interpersonal relationship metaphors were utilized to describe
different forms of child – brand relationships. The article concludes
that children’s relationships with brands serve important functions
in their lives and have significant implications for marketers. 䉷 2002
Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Recently, consumer researchers started to study consumer – brand relationships (Fournier, 1998; Kates, 2000) and examine how consumers
develop relationships with brands (Aaker, Brasel, & Fournier, 2001).
Through relationships developed with brands, consumers not only obtain functional aids to their living, but also seek meaning in various
aspects of their lives (Fournier, 1998). Existing work on consumer-brand
relationships implies that consumers develop relationships with brands
throughout their life span; some relationships with brands may be developed when consumers are young. However, no empirical work has
investigated children’s relationships with brands, though research suggests that children develop preferences for certain brands when they
are young (Roedder-John, 1999). The purpose of this study is to fill this
Base of text
Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 19(4): 369–387 (April 2002)
䉷 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. ● DOI: 10.1002/mar.10015
369
Base of DF
MAR
WILEJ
LEFT
BATCH
gap. Specifically, the study intends to determine whether children establish relationships with brands, and if so, how to describe the characteristics of child – brand relationships.
Top of text
Base of text
Why Study Children’s Relationships with Brands?
Studying the child – brand relationship phenomenon has its practical
implications. First, children consume a wide range of products from the
time they are born. For example, parents use J&J baby powder on their
babies, feed them with Gerber baby food, and cover them with Huggies
diapers. At around age two, children begin to eat their first solid food,
often cereal (Cole & Cole, 1996), and develop relationships with certain
brands, such as Cheerios, that may last a lifetime. As children grow
older, they not only consume more brands such as McDonalds’ food and
Barbie dolls through the purchases of their parents, but also begin to
make purchases using their own income (McNeal, 1999). In all, children
consume a wide range of brands and these early experiences may serve
as definite influences on their choices in adulthood (Guest, 1942).
When children consume and experience brands that are either purchased by their parents or by themselves, they also become aware of the
existence of other product brands that they may consume when they
grow up, such as automobiles, banks, telephone services, and airlines.
By observation and word-of-mouth, children gradually accumulate perceptions of a certain brand’s user and usage image in their minds. It is
in this sense that children are considered as a future market for every
producer of consumer goods and services (McNeal, 1999). For example,
recently, Ford has been planning an advertising campaign to communicate a safety message to kids and, thus, to develop a positive image
among them (Flint, 2000). This brand awareness (e.g., familiarity with
the Ford name and products) and brand image (e.g., Ford promotes auto
safety), the two components of brand knowledge, are very important
because they are central to customer-based brand equity (Keller, 1993)
and may affect the success of the brand’s future marketing activities.
Therefore, marketers should take a long-term view of marketing decisions and develop strategies that nurture long-term relationships with
children.
Studying children’s relationships with brands also has important
theoretical implications. As researchers, we want to know if children
make connections with brands and if they can become loyal consumers.
In addition, it is important to understand the characteristics of different
types of child – brand relationships and the roles that these relationships may play in children’s daily lives. Before answering these questions, the article (a) reviews existing literature that suggests that children may develop relationships with brands, and (b) describes how
370
JI
short
standard
Base of RF
MAR
WILEJ
RIGHT
BATCH
social environmental factors may influence the development of child –
brand relationships.
Top of text
Base of text
Can Children Establish Relationships with Brands?
Brands are associated with a set of human characteristics that, in total,
are termed brand personality (Aaker, 1997). Fournier (1998) suggests
that brands should not be considered passive objects of marketing transactions but as active, contributing members of the relationship dyad.
She states, “One way to legitimize the brand-as-partner is to highlight
ways in which brands are animated, humanized, or somehow personalized (p. 334).” Through in-depth interviews with three women, Fournier (1998) provided empirical evidence that adults establish relationships with brands, which take different forms.
The existing evidence that children develop relationships with
brands, however, is not convincing. In a 1964 issue of the Journal of
Applied Psychology, Lester Guest published a longitudinal study that
covered 20 years. He found that brand preferences originally expressed
during the ages of 7 – 18 correlated with brand usage reported 20 years
later, with the average amount of agreement between 1941 preferences
and 1961 use being 23%. Guest concluded that early childhood experiences exert considerable influence upon later brand-purchasing behavior. This preference similarity implies that children might establish
some sort of relationships with brands when they are young. On the
other hand, one can argue that children simply carry their positive affect
toward brands to their adulthood without actually establishing relationships with these brands when they were young.
Fournier (1998) conducted case studies of three women’s relationships with brands. One type of consumer – brand relationships uncovered was “Childhood Friendship,” a relationship that is affectively laden
and reminiscent of earlier times, yielding comfort and security of one’s
past self. For example, Jean, an interviewee in her study, uses Estee
Lauder, a brand that her mother used when Jean was a young girl. This
finding confirms the notion that consumers have the potential to develop
relationships with brands when they are young. However, it is still not
clear if Jean indeed developed a relationship with Estee Lauder when
she was a child.
The nostalgia phenomenon suggests that people tend to feel nostalgia
toward what they were familiar with when they were young (Holbrook
& Schindler, 1991). Recently, there have been increasing nostalgia appeals appearing in marketing campaigns, such as Quaker Oats breakfast cereal (Thompson, 1999). This nostalgia phenomenon suggests that
consumers may establish relationships with brands in their childhood,
for instance, perhaps they used to have Quaker Oats for breakfast. On
the other hand, one can argue that this nostalgia phenomenon simply
CHILDREN’S RELATIONSHIPS WITH BRANDS
371
short
standard
Base of RF
MAR
WILEJ
LEFT
BATCH
reflects a person’s general tendency to have good feelings toward the old
times including a brand that they had in their childhood, without actually forming a relationship with the brand.
The developmental-psychology literature suggests that children begin to form relationships with people, pets, and inanimate objects from
an early age. One such form of relationships is attachment, an enduring
emotional tie between the child and another person, such as parent and
friend (Bowlby, 1969), family pet (Kidd & Kidd, 1985), and/or object,
such as a blanket. Bowlby’s (1969) attachment theory, however, does
not specifically look at brands and does not provide convincing evidence
that children are attached to brands.
In all, a review of the literature suggests that there is not enough
convincing evidence to suggest that children develop relationships with
brands. One objective of the current research is to provide such empirical evidence. In order to demonstrate that children indeed develop relationships with brands, the article borrows interpersonal relationship
theories and principles on how to determine if two people are in relationships. According to Berscheid and Reis (1998), most relationship
scholars would not view two persons as being in a relationship with each
other unless both have represented and organized their past interactions in memory. Therefore, the key criterion to determine that children
have established relationships with brands is to show that children have
stored their past interactions with a brand in their memories. This criterion implies that children at least should know the brand name in
order to form a relationship with the brand. That is, if a child is asked
to talk about their experiences with brands in a product category, naming a brand from the product category is a prerequisite for suggesting
that the child has developed a relationship with the brand. Naming a
favorite brand itself, however, does not provide all the evidence that is
needed to show the establishment of a child – brand relationship. If a
child has developed a relationship with a brand, he or she should have
stored information about his or her past interactions with the brand
and be able to retrieve this information under the right circumstances.
Based on this rationale, the research utilizes in-depth interview methodology to explore if children develop relationships with brands, and if
so, how to characterize these relationships. Because these relationships
are not developed in a vacuum, it is also important to understand the
social environment where children grow. The following section is a brief
description of the social environmental factors that may influence the
formation and development of child – brand relationships.
Top of text
Base of text
The Social Environment of Child – Brand Relationships
Child – brand relationships are influenced by a variety of social factors
such as family (parents, siblings, and relatives), peers, and mass media.
In the consumer socialization literature, these social factors are termed
short
standard
372
Base of RF
JI
MAR
WILEJ
RIGHT
BATCH
socialization agents, through whom children learn marketplace-related
skills, knowledge, and attitudes (Moschis, 1981). Each agent will be
briefly discussed.
Parents are probably the most instrumental in teaching children basic
rational aspects of consumption, such as satisfying basic consumer
needs in the marketplace (Riesman, Glazer, & Denny, 1956), understanding price – quality relationships (Moore & Stephens, 1975), handling money wisely (Marshall & Magruder, 1960), and shopping for different qualities among products (Ward, Wackman, & Wartella, 1977).
Although parents are considered the primary socialization agents of
children, no other agent of consumer socialization has received more
attention (in the literature) than the mass media (Moschis, 1987; Roedder-John, 1999). Through mass media, including both advertising and
editorial/program content (O’Guinn & Shrum, 1997), children may learn
about new brands and products (Goldberg, Gorn, & Gibson, 1978), how
to use products and who uses them (Atkin, 1978), realities and beliefs
about them (Gorn & Florsheim, 1985), and preferences for them (Gorn
& Goldberg, 1977). Peers also have input to children’s consumer socialization process. Studies show that young people learn the symbolic
meaning of goods or expressive elements of consumption from their
peers (Moschis & Moore, 1982). In addition, peers play an important
role in the development of children’s preference for stores (McNeal,
1964), products (Hawkins & Coney, 1974), brands of selected products
(Moschis, Moore, & Stanley, 1983), and things to collect (Baker & Gentry, 1996). The role of siblings, however, has received little research and
no significant findings have emerged so far. But it seems likely that the
presence of older siblings would accelerate a young child’s “knowledge
of popular brands names, understanding of consumption symbolism,
and maybe even materialistic attitudes” (Roedder-John, 1999).
After a review of the related literature, the rest of the article first
describes the methods utilized to answer the two research questions.
Then, it reports, interprets, and discusses the interviewing results and
suggests recommendations for future studies.
Top of text
Base of text
METHODOLOGY
Sample
To answer the question of whether children develop relationships with
brands and to understand how social environment influences the relationships, the researcher determined that the best sampling unit would
be a family with children. Three children, a female aged 7 (F7), a male
aged 9 (M9), and a male aged 13 (M13) from the same family were
chosen to participate in this study. The children’s father, an acquaintance of the researcher, was first contacted and provided an explanation
short
standard
CHILDREN’S RELATIONSHIPS WITH BRANDS
Base of RF
373
MAR
WILEJ
LEFT
BATCH
about the nature and purpose of the study. This sample choice allows
the researcher to study children’s brand usage experiences in the family
context; that is, to what degree the children’s relationships with brands
are influenced by their parents and siblings.
Top of text
Base of text
Research Technique
Because relationships are best studied with the use of story-telling techniques (Clandinin & Connelly, 1998), this approach was used for the
current research. Specifically, each child was asked to talk about their
experiences with a range of brands. In addition, a group interview was
also conducted among the three children. The group interview has been
proven suitable for studying dynamics among individuals (Lindlof,
1995), and so was selected to study the interactions among these three
children. In addition, the group interview helped the researcher get to
know the children and build rapport with them.
Procedures
The study consists of four parts: talking to the children’s parents before
and after interviewing the children (60 minutes); interviewing the three
children as a group (70 minutes); interviewing each child individually
in his/her own room (60 minutes for F7, 50 minutes for M9, and 60
minutes for M13); and asking their parents to read the researcher’s
interpretation of the interviews. A total of 5 hour-long interviews were
conducted and audio taped.
The group interview with all three children was conducted in a university seminar room. The researcher started the discussion by asking
the three children to play a game called “Buy a Birthday Gift for a
Friend.” The game-playing method is used to better enable children to
maintain their interest in the interview (Hughes & Baker, 1990) and to
study the dynamics of group interaction in terms of how the children
influence each other’s decision making. In addition, more discussions
about their likes and dislikes, interests, and general life were also conducted after the game was finished.
The interview with each child took place in his/her own room. While
interviewing each child, the researcher started by asking general questions about their lives such as their media usage, their relationships
with friends, their leisure activity, and their shopping behaviors. Then
she shifted the focus by asking each child about their brand experiences
with a group of product categories including TV, stereo, bike, car, restaurant, cereal, toothpaste, shampoo, soap, chip, soft drink, candy, airline, bank, computer, and clothing. These products were chosen because
children have opportunities to use them or observe them being used in
their daily lives. For a brand that a child indicated a preference, he or
she was further encouraged to tell a story about it. The researcher also
short
standard
374
Base of RF
JI
MAR
WILEJ
RIGHT
BATCH
took field notes when she interviewed each child, including such information as their response patterns, room layout, and significant artifacts
in the room.
Before and after the interviews, the researcher also had a chance to
talk to their parents, which provided her with more insights about the
three children’s lives and furnished her with an additional source to
validate the information she obtained from the three children.
Top of text
Base of text
Data Analysis and Reliability and Validity Issues
The researcher first transcribed all 5 hours of the interview. Then she
did two types of interpretation: idiographic analysis and across-person
analysis (Fournier, 1998), both following the general procedures of
grounded theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). The idiographic analysis, or
the analysis of each participant, was based on interviews with each child
and their parents, observation of the child’s interaction with others in
the group interview, and the field notes taken while conducting the interview in each child’s room. The behavioral and psychological tendencies were identified to develop a central theme in each child’s interaction with brands. Ways in which the social environment influences
the central themes were further elaborated. The second type of analysis
across the three children is to “discover the patterns across brand episodes and individuals that could help structure an understanding of
consumer-brand relationship phenomenon (Fournier, 1998).” To facilitate the interpretation, the researcher utilized interpersonal relationship metaphors, which can create a new meaning through analogy and
are used frequently as sense-making devices in qualitative analysis
(Lindlof, 1995).
The data were validated by checking with the parents about the children’s usage and exposure to brands, their media usage habit, their
relationships with peers, and their leisure activities. This check lent
confidence into the accuracy of the data. In addition, a copy of the research report was given to the parents to read, to ensure that the interpretation is appropriate.
RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
The researcher first reviewed the general brand usage experiences of
each child and their lives in general to serve as background information
(idiographic analysis). Then she analyzed the forms of relationships
across the three children and classified the relationships into different
categories (across-person analysis). In addition, information on each
child’s leisure activities, media usage, and peer relationships obtained
from the interviews was used to explain how social environmental factors influence children’s experiences with brands.
short
standard
CHILDREN’S RELATIONSHIPS WITH BRANDS
Base of RF
375
MAR
WILEJ
LEFT
BATCH
Top of text
Base of text
Idiographic Analysis
Case I: F7. F7 is a Barbie doll lover and has a closet full of them, around
90 according to her. She enjoys playing with her dolls by herself or with
her friends, likes to make her dolls look pretty, and pays special attention to Barbie commercials on TV. She also reads Barbie Doll magazine,
plays the Barbie Paint game, and dreams to have a My-Size Angel Barbie. F7’s fondness of Barbie products is consistent with her stage of
gender-role development, a very important aspect of self-concept. As she
stated, “I like all the girl stuff.”
As F7 is growing up, she feels good about having many friends, knowing how to operate a new stereo, making bracelets, and learning to ride
a bike for the first time. Therefore, for her, experiences related to brand
usage are about growing up and gaining competence. In addition, the
names of her favorite brands have very special meaning to her.
Throughout the interview, she spelled out Dell (D-E-L-L) and pronounced several times the name of her favorite restaurant (“It is Arby’s,
not Harby. It is like this — Arby.”). For her, learning brand names is a
part of grasping language, and brand names gradually become a component of her expanding vocabulary.
F7’s friends have a great impact on her preference for certain brands.
During the weekend her friends come over and sometimes they stay
overnight. Through the interaction with her friends, F7 learns to like
certain brands and dislike others. For example, after she watched the
commercial about L’Oreal shampoo for kids on TV, she wanted to try
the new shampoo that “is tear-free and your hair will not tingle.” But
after her friends used it and it did not work, she stopped asking her
mother for this shampoo.
TV also has an important influence on F7’s relationships with certain
brands. According to her mother, F7 likes to watch commercials about
Target, Barbie dolls, and those that have girls singing and dancing. But
when she was asked if she watched commercials, she said that she went
away most of the time when the commercials were on and came back
when the show was on again. She hates commercials, “because I can’t
see the show.” Although she does not like commercials very much, she
cannot escape their influence on her.
Case II: M9. M9’s life is involved with sports. He shows great passion
for sports activity and is considered an athlete by himself, his family
members, and friends. At the beginning of the interview, he took out a
football from his closet, which is full of sports equipment, and played
with it throughout the interview. He often goes into the Internet to look
at “stuff” about sports and reads Sports Illustrated for Kids. For him,
sports are fun and exciting. Because Adidas is a symbol for sports, he
likes to wear Adidas shoes and an Adidas cap. As for clothing, as long
as it relates to sports, it is great for him. His favorite car is a Mercedes,
short
standard
376
Base of RF
JI
MAR
WILEJ
RIGHT
BATCH
which is consistent with his interest in the sports — “sometimes it can
really run very fast.” In all, M9’s affiliation with sports-related brands
is a way for him to be and to become an athlete.
Unlike F7, however, M9’s relationships with brands seem to be influenced little by his friends and mass media. His family, on the other
hand, appears to have relatively more influence on his preference for
certain brands. For example, his preference for Mercedes cars is influenced by his father, who drives a Mercedes. Also, his preference for Dell
computers may be due to the fact that his father has a Dell computer
at home.
Top of text
Base of text
Case III: M13. A central part of M13’s life is playing video games. He
loves to play video games, spends a lot of time on it, talks with his
friends about it, and seeks information on it through commercials, the
Internet, magazines (e.g., Matt magazine), and stores (Toys R Us, WalMart, Target). For him, playing games is fun and challenging, and learning to play a new game well is a big accomplishment.
M13 is the only child in the family who owns a computer. This gives
him some power and authority as an older brother, and also creates
some conflict between him and his younger brother and sister. Compared to them, M13 spends less time watching TV, but more time hanging out with friends during the weekend and after school. This is consistent with existing research findings that as children reach early
adolescence they begin to spend less time with family (TV viewing is a
family activity) and experience new freedoms that allow them to spend
more time away from home and TV (Larson, Kubey, & Colletti, 1989).
As the oldest boy in the family, his influence is shown in the decisionmaking process in the group interview in which they were asked to
make a decision to buy a gift for an imaginary friend. His influence
is also exposed in the information that he passes to his brother and sister. When M9 and F7 were asked to describe a commercial that they
like, both mentioned the one about LocalCoupon.com, which they
learned from M13. Therefore, there is a two-step communication flow
among mass media and the three children: (1) from mass media (TV
in this case) to M13, and (2) from M13 to M9 and F7. In addition, M13
is attached to his Jeep (a recent gift from his grandparents), which
illustrates how his grandparents influence his relationship with the
brand.
Across-Person Analysis
The across-person analysis of the interview went through two stages.
The first stage was to identify if a child has developed a relationship
with a brand in each product category. A relationship is not established
if a child cannot name a brand from the product category. Below is an
short
standard
CHILDREN’S RELATIONSHIPS WITH BRANDS
Base of RF
377
MAR
WILEJ
LEFT
BATCH
example of F7’s description of her flying experience but she could not
name the airline. (R indicates the researcher, F7 the subject.)
Top of text
Base of text
R: Have you ever flown before?
F7: Yes, I saw the people on the ground. They are small and far away.
R: Do you remember which airline you flew?
F7: No.
R: What do you remember about flying?
F7: Last time when I had to sit near the window, I was scared because
we were next to the cloud and I was scared because if I fell out I
could hurt myself. But if I leaned to the other side, that would be
OK.
In this case, F7 has not developed a relationship with the airline brand.
If a child is able to name a brand and describe his or her experience
with the brand, then a relationship has developed between him or her
and that brand.
After child – brand relationships were identified, they were classified
into different types during the second stage of the analysis. Interpersonal relationship metaphors such as marriage, love, and friendship
were utilized to describe different relationship types. Usage of the word
love to describe an individual’s relationship with a brand may sound too
extreme, but consumer-behavior literature indicates the existence of
“product love,” which describes the adoration (focused attention) that a
consumer shows to a certain product (Oliver, 1999; Shimp & Madden,
1987). Ahuvia (1992) suggests that the “love object” could sometimes
literally be an object, including commercial products. From an empirical
study, Ahuvia (1992) concludes that people do love products, at least in
terms of their own understanding of what love means. In addition, consumer researchers (i.e., Fournier, 1998) also have used metaphors to
describe relationships developed between adults and brands.
In total, children told 60 stories about their relationships with brands.
These 60 stories were classified into 10 relationship categories and each
category was labeled with the use of an interpersonal relationship metaphor. It should be noted that the following categories are not mutually
exclusive. It is possible for one type of relationship to change to another
kind over time.
First Love. A child’s first love experience with a brand has a great
impact on him or her, and this impact may be carried over to later experiences with other brands from the same product category. This kind
of love is characterized by a child’s adoration of the brand and the first
love experience has some significant meaning to the child’s development
of self-concept and gaining competence. Five stories that children told
short
standard
378
Base of RF
JI
MAR
WILEJ
RIGHT
BATCH
about their relationships with brands are in the category of first love.
M13’s relationship with Jeep illustrates such a case.
Top of text
Base of text
R: Is there a certain kind of car that you really like?
M13: A Jeep. My grandparents gave it to me.
R: Why do you like it?
M13: It is my first one and it is easy to drive. It was my grandparent’s,
but now it is mine. It is fun to drive.
F7’s relationships with her stereo and bike also fall into this category.
In her case, the brands that she uses probably are not as important as
the fact that she uses these brands for the first time. Therefore, the
brands with which she has the first experience are very special in her
eyes, and these experiences may even shape her opinion about the product categories in general.
R: (pointing at the Phillips Stereo on the shelf) You have a stereo.
How do you like it?
F7: It is Phillips. You have to put on tape, CD, or radio. This is FM
and AM. I listen to FM 90.7 . . . My baby sister told me that
there is another that has a lot of good music, FM 100.9.
R: How did you get this?”
F7: A gift for my birthday when I turned to seven. I like this a lot. It
is easy to use. The first time you use it, it is really easy.”
R: Do you own a bike?
F7: A green one. Dark green like that (points to a doll’s purse on the
table).
R: Do you remember what brand it is?
F7: No, I do not remember the brand. I do not ride it very often. One
time when I was practicing, my father held me at the back. But
he let me go by myself. I rode for a long way but I did not know
that. First, it is hard.
R: Do you remember how old you were when that happened?
F7: When I was six.
R: You learned to ride a bike at really an early age!
F7: (nodding and smiling) It was hard at first.
True Love. This type of brand love is nurtured over a long period of
time through repeated usage of a brand, probably even after a child has
experienced one or more other brands from the same product category.
short
standard
CHILDREN’S RELATIONSHIPS WITH BRANDS
Base of RF
379
MAR
WILEJ
LEFT
BATCH
It is characterized by focused attention (substitute brands are not acceptable), strong attachment, and high commitment. It should be noted
that sometimes true love may also be the first love. But in general,
true love is nurtured over a long period of time. Six stories illustrate
the instance of true love. M13’s love affair with his bike is such an example.
Top of text
Base of text
R: Do you own a bike?
M13: Yes, it is a Trek.
R: Do you remember when you got it?
M13: 1996.
R: Tell me what it is like?
M13: It is green and has 10 speeds. I ride it on the weekend. Sometimes I go to the park and ride it over there.
R: How do you like it?
M13: I like it. I do not want to have a new one. My brother got a new
bike. But I do not want one. I want mine.
R: Something special about it?
M13: I had one before. It was really old. It crashed. This one is easier.
It is easy to ride. Sometimes, I go to get my brother and sister
at school. I will park it. But if I do not have my key, I left it at
home, every five minutes, I will come out and check if it is still
there.
In the case of F7, Barbie dolls are her true love. When she talked
about her doll, her exciting tone and happy facial expression suggest
that she adores her Barbie dolls. Her true love for Barbie brand also
extends to other product categories such as Barbie Sparkling Fruit-Flavor toothpaste, Barbie Doll magazine, and Barbie Paint video game. For
M9, a football, a gift from his aunt is his true love. He held it all the
time through the interview. He has owned it for quite a while and played
with it a great deal.
Arranged Marriage. This metaphor describes the nonvoluntary union
between a consumer and a brand imposed by preferences of third party,
intended for long-term, exclusive commitment, although at low levels of
affective attachment (Fournier, 1998). The relationship between M13
and Sony brand illustrates such a case. M13 currently uses a Sony
stereo and a Sony digital alarm clock, which are gifts from his cousin.
In addition, the family TV sets are also Sony, which were purchased by
his parents. His relationship with Sony brand is not by his own choice,
but arranged by his cousin and parents. In his interview, M13 indicated
that he probably would buy himself a Sony brand TV in the future be-
short
standard
380
Base of RF
JI
MAR
WILEJ
RIGHT
BATCH
cause “I have had it for a long time and it is good.” In all, he considers
the Sony brand very reliable and commits himself to it, but shows little
affection toward it. However, this does not imply that the arranged marriage will not turn into true love as a child’s usage experience with the
brand increases. In total, six child – brand relationships are classified
into this category.
Top of text
Base of text
Secret Admirer. This metaphor describes a relationship in which a
child has great admiration for a brand and wants to own it, but cannot
accomplish this goal because of limited resources and abilities to obtain
the brand. Five stories illustrate the instances of secret admirer. For
example, F7 has great admiration for the computer she once saw in the
Scott & White clinic, which can be operated by touching the screen. She
also admires her Dad’s Dell computer.
R: Is there a kind of computer that you really like?
F7: I like my Dad’s.
R: Something special about it?
F7: The keyboard instead of a long square, it is . . . the side is like
this (using her hands to suggest a portrait shape). It is great. I
cannot type very fast.
R: What brand is it?
F7: Dell, D-E-L-L.
M9’s admiration for Mercedes cars is another example. He saw someone driving one on the street and likes it because it can run really fast.
His admiration may also relate to the fact that his father drives an ’87
Mercedes. This great admiration may become true love when the child
has more opportunity and ability to use the brand. Also, M9 admires
his Dad’s Dell computer because one can scroll down the button on the
mouse of the computer.
Good Friend. “Good friend” is used to describe a relationship in which
a child considers a brand really good, having desirable characteristics
(e.g., good taste), and providing personal pleasure. This category consists primarily of foods, drinks, and restaurants, and 13 child – brand
relationships belong to this category. For example, M13 likes Rice Crispies for breakfast because it is tasty. For the same reason, M9 likes Dr.
Pepper and F7 likes Cherry Coke and Skittles. Children have warm
feelings toward these brands, but the feelings are not as strong as those
developed in the relationships of true love or first love.
Fun Buddy. This metaphor describes a relationship in which a child
associates a brand with fun, happiness, and being playful. M9 likes his
short
standard
CHILDREN’S RELATIONSHIPS WITH BRANDS
Base of RF
381
MAR
WILEJ
LEFT
BATCH
Adidas slippers because they have balls on the bottom and he thinks it
is really funny. He also likes Dell computers because there is a button
on the mouse so that one can scroll down, which is really cool and playful. F7 likes the Target store where she can get Icee, which is full of fun
and excitement. M13’s liking of Spencer’s is another example of fun
buddy — “It is full of neon things and a lot of fun.” In total 10 of the
child – brand relationships belong to this category.
Top of text
Base of text
Old Buddy. This metaphor describes a relationship type in which a
child maintains a good memory of a brand that was used before and will
use it again if certain conditions permit. M9’s memory about Mellow
Mushroom — a pizza place in Atlanta where he went to have pizza four
years ago, is the only case of old buddy relationship from the current
interview. He really likes the food there, but more important he thinks
the name of the restroom is really cool, Mellow Flushroom. Based on
the later conversation with his father, the researcher learns that M9
talks about the restaurant a lot and wants to go back to the place again
in the future.
Acquaintance. This metaphor describes a relationship where a child
may know of the brand, but does not have much knowledge or feeling
about it. Although M13 has flown American Eagle before, he has no
preference for it. He also knows Continental Airlines through his friend,
whose father flies it often, but has no affection toward it. M9 uses Arm
& Hammer toothpaste, but shows little care. Five of the child – brand
relationships belong to this category.
One-Night Stand. This metaphor describes the condition where a child
does not care about a brand at all, has little knowledge about it, and
just uses whatever their parents give to him or her. In total, there are
five examples of “one-night stand.” M12 does not care about shampoo,
toothpaste, or clothing, and uses whatever his parents bought for him.
M9 shows similar indifference to shampoo and soap. It should be noted
that one-night stand brand relationships are different from the arranged – marriage relationship, which requires a high commitment from
a child.
Enmity. This metaphor describes a relationship type that a child hates
a brand either because she or he had a bad experience with it or heard
bad comments about it from others. There are four examples of “enmity”
from the current interview. F7 once tried one kind of chips, which tasted
really bad, and now she really hates them. After F7’s friends told her
that L’Oreal kids shampoo did not work, F7 began to dislike it. M9 does
not like his current bike because it is not good enough for him, so he
short
standard
382
Base of RF
JI
MAR
WILEJ
RIGHT
BATCH
does not ride it a lot. Another example of enmity is M13’s negative
feeling toward his old bike, which crashed and made the ride really
difficult.
Top of text
Base of text
DISCUSSION
The interview with the three children from the same family suggests
that children develop relationships with a variety of brands — they know
their names and are able to store and retrieve information about their
past interactions with them. These relationships take different forms,
which differ in strength and nature as the metaphors depict. This finding provides some good news both for marketers who target children as
a current market (e.g., bicycles) and those who consider children as a
future market (e.g., cars). Children’s connection with brands implies
that they have great potential to be nurtured to become loyal customers
for a wide range of brands. The key is how to make connections between
brands and children’s needs.
Children’s relationships with brands serve certain functions and play
important roles in their daily lives. These relationships are the tools
through which children grow up, gain competence, pursue the pleasure
of life, fulfill their dreams, and become connected with others. The formation of relationships is also a process of developing possible selves
such as becoming and being a girl for F7 (e.g., her relationship with
Barbie dolls), an athlete for M9 (e.g., his relationship with Adidas), and
a grown-up for M13 (e.g., his relationship with Jeep).
Marketers also have to realize that child – brand relationships are
influenced by the social environment, which includes parents, siblings,
relatives, peers, and mass media. For example, the three children’s admiration for certain brands of cars is related to their parents’ and grandparents’ usage of cars. The children’s father drives a Mercedes, their
mother drives a Toyota, and their grandparents used to drive a Jeep.
So it is probably not a coincidence that M13 likes Jeep, M9 likes Mercedes, and F7 likes Toyota. The influence of parents can be further supported by the fact that all three children like Dell computers, the brand
that their father currently uses. F7’s dislike of L’Oreal kids shampoo is
an example of how friends influence a child’s brand preferences. In addition, siblings influence each other through verbal communication
(e.g., talking about certain commercials). In all, child – brand relationships are embedded in the social environment where children live and
grow.
The current study also has its limitations. First, the metaphors used
to describe child – brand relationships are based on the interviews with
only three children from one middle-class family. It is difficult to judge
how representative each relationship category is. As sample size increases, more categories may come to light, which have not been uncov-
short
standard
CHILDREN’S RELATIONSHIPS WITH BRANDS
Base of RF
383
MAR
WILEJ
LEFT
BATCH
ered by the current study. In addition, the metaphors coming out of this
study should also be understood in the specific context of the study (e.g.,
where, when, and how the study was conducted and by whom). However, “the goal of case study is not the breadth or representativeness of
large-n research, but rather the depth of the knowing. The risks of low
data integrity are traded for the currency and contextual richness of
what is learned” (Bonoma, 1985, p. 206). Therefore, the limitation of
small sample size does not overshadow the merits of the current study.
Second, the credibility and reliability of young children’s responses are
another issue that should be taken into account in interpreting the data.
Various researchers have suggested that young children have high suggestibility and therefore their responses may be biased (Bruck & Ceci,
1999). This problem might also have occurred in this study. The researcher tried to validate the information obtained from children by (1)
checking if the information from each child conflicts with that given by
the other children, and (2) checking with the parents. This validation
confirmed that children’s responses were relatively accurate.
Despite its limitations, the study still makes several significant contributions to the consumer – brand relationship literature. It demonstrates for the first time that children, indeed, develop relationships
with brands from an early age and these relationships are hybrids of
personal needs and social influence. Children’s connections with certain
brands are a central part of their lives and together these connections
orchestrate a developmental theme for each child. These themes are
experienced in their daily interactions with brands and contribute to
their developing a sense of self in today’s commercialized society. In
addition, the study uncovers those brand relationship types that are
specific to children, such as first love, fun buddy, and secret admirer,
which are less common among adults. These relationship types reflect
children’s specific natures in interacting with brands. The instance of
first-love suggests that children lack consumption experiences in the
marketplace; the existence of fun buddy reflects children’s need to play;
and the presence of secret admirer mirrors their limited financial abilities in forming relationships with brands. Apparently, obtaining a more
comprehensive list of child – brand relationship types calls for future
research efforts, especially longitudinal studies that track how children’s relationships with brands change over time as they grow up and
take on more roles assigned by society.
Top of text
Base of text
REFERENCES
Aaker, J. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34, 347 – 356.
384
JI
short
standard
Base of RF
MAR
WILEJ
RIGHT
BATCH
Aaker, J., Brasel, S. A., & Fournier, S. (2001). Charting the development of
brand relationships. Working paper.
Ahuvia, A. (1992). For the love of money, materialism, and product love. In F.
Rudmin & M. Richins (Eds.), Meaning, measure, and morality of materialism
(pp. 188 – 198). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.
Atkin, C. K. (1978). Effects of drug commercials on young viewers. Journal of
Communication, 28, 71 – 79.
Baker, S. M., & Gentry, J. W. (1996). Kids as collectors: A phenomenological
study of first and fifth grade. In K. P. Corfman & J. G. Lynch (Eds.), Advances
in consumer research (Vol. 23, pp. 132 – 137). Minneapolis, MN: Association
for Consumer Research.
Berscheid, E., & Reis, H. T. (1998). Attraction and close relationships. In D.
Gillbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology
(pp. 193 – 281). New York: Random House.
Bonoma, T. V. (1985). Case research in marketing: opportunities, problems,
and a process. Journal of Marketing Resesarch, 22, 199 – 208.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment. New York: Basic Books.
Bruck, M., & Ceci, S. J. (1999). The suggestibility of children’s memory. Annual
Review of Psychology, 50, 419 – 439.
Clandinin, J. D., & Connelly, M. F. (1998). Personal experience methods. In N.
K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincon (Eds.), Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (pp. 150 – 178). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cole, M., & Cole, S. R. (1996). The development of children (3rd ed.). New York:
W. H. Freeman.
Flint, J. (2000, April 18). Ford to sell safety to kids on Nickelodeon. The Wall
Street Journal, p. B8.
Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 343 – 373.
Goldberg, M. E., Gorn, F. J., & Gibson, W. (1978). TV messages for snack and
breakfast foods: Do they influence children’s preferences? Journal of Consumer Research, 5, 73 – 81.
Gorn, G. J., & Florsheim, R. (1985). The effects of commercials for adult products on children. Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 962 – 967.
Gorn, G. J., & Goldberg, M. E. (1977). The impact of television advertising on
children from low-income families. Journal of Consumer Research, 4, 86 – 88.
Guest, L. (1942). The genesis of brand awareness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 26, 800 – 808.
Guest, L. (1964). Brand loyalty revisited: A twenty-year report. Journal of Applied Psychology, 48, 93 – 97.
Hawkins, D., & Coney, K. (1974). Peer influences on children’s product preferences. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 2, 322 – 330.
Holbrook, M. B., & Schindler, R. M. (1991). Echoes of the dear, departed past:
Some work in progress on nostalgia. In R. H. Holman & M. R. Solomon (Eds.),
Advances in Consumer Research (Vol. 18, pp. 330 – 333). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.
Hughes, J. N., & Baker, D. (1990). The clinical child interview. New York: The
Guilford Press.
Kates, S. M. (2000). Out of the closet and out on the street!: Gay men and their
brand relationships. Psychology & Marketing, 17(6), 493 – 513.
CHILDREN’S RELATIONSHIPS WITH BRANDS
385
Top of text
Base of text
short
standard
Base of RF
MAR
WILEJ
LEFT
BATCH
Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customerbased brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57, 1 – 22.
Kidd, A. H., & Kidd, R. M. (1985). Children’s attitudes toward their pets. Psychological Reports, 57, 15 – 31.
Larson, R., Kubey, R., & Colletti, J. (1989). Changing channels: Early adolescent media choices and shifting investment in family and friends. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 18(6), 583 – 599.
Lindlof, T. R. (1995). Qualitative communication research methods. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Marshall, H., & Magruder, L. (1960). Relations between parent, money, education practices and children’s knowledge and use of money. Child Development, 31, 253 – 284.
McNeal, J. U. (1964). Children as consumers, marketing study series (No. 9).
Austin, TX: University of Texas, Bureau of Business Research.
McNeal, J. U. (1999). Kids market: Myths and realities. Ithaca, NY: Paramount
Market.
Moore, R., & Stephens, L. (1975). Some communication and demographic determinants of adolescent consumer learning. Journal of Consumer Research,
2, 80 – 92.
Moschis, G. (1981). Socialization perspectives and consumer behavior. In B.
Enis & K. Roering (Eds.), Review of marketing (pp. 43 – 56). Chicago: American Marketing Association.
Moschis, G. (1987). Consumer socialization: A life style perspective. Lexington,
MA: Lexington Books.
Moschis, G., & Moore, R. L. (1982). A longitudinal study of television advertising effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 279 – 287.
Moschis, G., & Moore, R. L., & Stanley, T. (1983). An exploratory study of brand
loyalty development. In T. Kinner (Ed.), Advances in consumer research (Vol.
11, pp. 412 – 417). Chicago: Association for Consumer Research.
O’Guinn, T. C., & Shrum, L. J. (1997). The role of television in the construction
of consumer reality. Journal of Consumer Research, 23, 278 – 294.
Oliver, R. (1999). Whence consumer loyalty. Journal of Marketing, 63 (Special
Issue), 33 – 44.
Riesman, D., Glazer, N., & Denny, R. (1956). The lonely crowd: A study of the
changing American character. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Roedder-John, D. (1999). Consumer socialization of children: A retrospective
look at twenty-five years of research. Journal of Consumer Research, 26,
183 – 213.
Shimp, T. A., & Madden, T. J. (1987). Consumer – object relations: A conceptual
framework based on analogously on Sternberg’s triangular theory of love. In
M. H. Houston (Ed.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 15, pp. 163 – 168).
Cambridge, MA: Association for Consumer Research.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Thompson, S. (1999). Cap’n Crunch: Ahoy, Adults!’ Adweek, 40(2), 6.
Ward, S., Wackman, D., & Wartella, E. (1977). How children learn to buy: The
development of consumer information processing skills. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
386
JI
Top of text
Base of text
short
standard
Base of RF
MAR
WILEJ
RIGHT
BATCH
The author greatly appreciates the support and help of Dr. Barbara Sharf during every phase of the project. The manuscript also benefits greatly from Dr.
Peter Dacin’s constructive advice. Thanks are also due to Dr. David Henard for
his help in the data-collection process. Finally, the author wishes to thank
participants in Haring Symposium (March 2001) for their helpful comments.
Top of text
Base of text
Correspondence regarding this article should be sent to: Mindy F. Ji, Department of Marketing, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-4112
(mji@cgsb.tamu.edu).
short
standard
CHILDREN’S RELATIONSHIPS WITH BRANDS
387
Base of RF