The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1361-2026.htm

JFMM
16,4
Effects of brand love, personality
and image on word of mouth
The case of fashion brands among
386 young consumers
Received 17 March 2011 Ahmed Rageh Ismail
Revised 28 June 2011 Marketing Department, College of Business, School of Business Management,
7 October 2011 Universiti Utara Malaysia, Sintok – Kedah, Malaysia, and
Accepted 11 January 2012
Gabriella Spinelli
Marketing Group, Brunel University, London, UK

Abstract
Purpose – Fashion brand love is a central concept in the consumer-brand relationship domain. Brand
managers tend to create more lovable brands, e.g. McDonald’s “I’m lovin it”. However, the importance
of this concept is not frequently discussed in marketing literature. Furthermore, the impact of brand
personality and brand image on brand love has not been investigated in any empirical research. This
paper aims to address this gap by developing a causal model incorporating brand love, brand
personality, brand image and word of mouth (WOM) to investigate the relationships among them.
Design/methodology/approach – Data were collected using a survey method and usable
questionnaires were completed by 250 undergraduate students. Path analysis was used to test the
hypotheses using AMOS 16.0.
Findings – Results revealed that only brand image is considered as a determinant of brand love that
affects WOM along with brand personality.
Practical implications – Results provide detailed implications and a platform on which future
research can be built.
Originality/value – The extant love research seems to be solely in the US context. To the best of the
author’s knowledge, this is the first study to investigate the concept of brand love outside the USA.
Keywords Brand love, Brand image, Brand personality, Word of mouth, Fashion brands,
Brand identity
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
For decades, branding in fashion research has gained increasing attention among
scholars worldwide and specifically in the UK. Different studies focussed on various
topics. To mention just a few; gaining a competitive advantage in fashion retailing
(Lewis and Hawksley, 1990), benefiting from the fashion own brand (Moore, 1995),
branding strategies in UK fashion retailers (Birtwistle and Freathy, 1998), corporate
branding (Burt and Sparks, 2002), factors influencing the willingness to buy retailer
own brands (Veloutsou et al., 2004), factors crucial to develop an intentionally
appealing brands (Wigley et al., 2005), attitude toward brand extension (Liu and Choi,
2009), luxury fashion brands (Moore and Birtwistle, 2005; Fionda and Moore, 2009;
Moore and Doyle, 2010), strategic alliances in the fashion sector (Wigley, 2011),
Journal of Fashion Marketing and understanding of the centrality of the own brand to fashion retailer brand strategy
Management
Vol. 16 No. 4, 2012
(McColl and Moore, 2011). Whereas, previous research in this area provides
pp. 386-398 fundamental contribution, still more research is needed to explore other facets of the
r Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1361-2026
branding theme. Loving fashion brands is an important aspect of research that is
DOI 10.1108/13612021211265791 interesting and worth studying. Consumers love their fashion brands that are well
suited to them and make them feel and look good. As a result, consumers develop a Effects of
relationship with a brand feel emotionally associated to their brands. brand love
Consumer-brand relationship in the last decade has gained much attention from
both practitioners and academics. Understanding the relationships between consumers on WOM
and their fashion brands has practical relevance to marketers due to the significant
impact of this relationship on a company’s profitability. Therefore, it is important to not
only understand how relationships are formed between consumers and fashion brands, 387
but we also must be aware of the factors that drive those relationships. Our purpose in
this study is to examine whether fashion brand personality and fashion brand image
will make consumers love their brands using framework that integrates fashion
brand love as theoretical starting point along with two well-researched constructs of
personality and image. We examine the relationships among those constructs due to
their potential relevance to the consumer-brand relationship domain. We also link them
to word-of-mouth (WOM) as an outcome of the relationship with a brand. The model
builds upon the study of Carroll and Ahuvia (2006) which has identified some
antecedents and consequences of brand love. In this study, however, we identify effects
of brand personality as well as brand image on brand love.
This paper is organized as follows. The next section provides the conceptual model
of how loving a fashion brand might be influenced by brand image and brand
personality and develops related hypotheses. The methods undertaken to examine the
relationships between the constructs are then detailed. The results of the empirical part
of this study are then presented, followed by the conclusions and implications. Finally,
future research directions and some limitations of the study are presented in
conclusion.

2. Conceptual development and research hypotheses

2.1 Brand love
Recent decades have witnessed an unprecedented research interest on love. Starting by
Rubin’s (1973) work, he defines love as “an attitude held by a person toward a
particular other person, involving predispositions to think, feel, and behave in certain
ways toward that other person” (p. 265). Several studies on love in psychology have
identified different love styles (Lee, 1977; Taraban and Hendrick, 1995). For example,
Lee (1977) have developed a typology identifying six styles of love: Eros, Ludus,
Storage, Pragma, Mania and Agape. Sternberg (1986) has offered a triangular theory
of love with three components: intimacy, passion and decision/commitment. The
unidimensional construct of love was presented by some scholars (e.g. Hatfield and
Sprecher, 1985). Later they have developed passionate love scale (Hatfield
and Sprecher, 1986). Aron and Aron (1986) have conceptualized love in terms
of self-expansion. Subsequently, scholars have offered an overwhelming amount of
measurement items to measure the feeling of love such as: trust, caring, respect,
concern for other’s well-being, commitment and accepting the other (e.g. Fehr, 1988, as
cited in Albert et al., 2008).
Shimp and Madden (1988) have proposed a conceptual model of “consumer-object
relationships” inspired by the triangular theory of love (Sternberg, 1986), in which
Sternberg’s three components of love (intimacy, passion and decision/commitment)
become liking, yearning and decision/commitment in a consumption context (cited in
Albert et al., 2008, p. 1063). These three components will strongly contribute to loyalty
felt and expressed toward the consumption object. Recently, marketing researchers
have investigated the concept of brand love (Ahuvia, 2005; Fournier, 1998). Fournier
JFMM (1998) answers the question of whether consumers can experience a feeling of love
16,4 toward a brand, she established that such a feeling may exist and consumers may
develop strong relationships with brands. Carroll and Ahuvia (2006, p. 5) define love
for a brand as “the degree of passionate emotional attachment that a person has for a
particular trade name.” Consumers’ love includes the following characteristics: “(1)
passion for a brand, (2) brand attachment, (3) positive evaluation of the brand, (4)
388 positive emotions in response to the brand, and (5) declarations of love toward the
brand” (Albert et al., 2008, p. 1064).
Consumers love their fashion brand because of the passion it inspires in them. They
want to be well dressed and well groomed also they want to be informed with the latest
styles. Basically, fashion brands are looking to capture and appeal young consumers
markets who desire to express themselves using fashion. Stylish fashion brands such
as H&M, Zara and Mango have become more popular all over the world. Their clothes,
jewellery and accessories are stylish and reasonably priced. They are successfully
winning the hearts of millions of young women who have a stronger bond with their
brands. In other words, consumers fall in love with their fashion brands at a young age.
Therefore, a solid foundation will be established between the consumers and the
brands that will enable the consumers to voice their opinions and give positive
feedback to other consumers.
Provided with the literature above, this study is aiming at examining the link
between brand love and different conceptualizations of brand personality, brand image
and WOM. Therefore, the following section provides a literature review aimed
at unpicking the other fundamental constructs of the proposed model (Figure 1) and at
developing the research hypotheses.

2.2 Brand personality

Among the functions brands perform is the relational function, where the brand is
construed as having a personality which enables it to form a relationship with the
consumer (Hankinson, 2004, pp. 110-11). The brand personality scale (BPS) consists
of five generic dimensions: sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication and
ruggedness. Since its creation, Aaker’s (1997) study has been replicated using
various consumer brands within different product categories and across different
cultures (e.g. Aaker et al., 2001). However, in the present study, the main focus is on the

Excitement

H1 H2
H6

Brand love H5 Brand image

Figure 1.
The relation among the H3 H4
main research constructs WOM
excitement dimension of brand personality. As suggested by many scholars, Effects of
excitement and sincerity are considered two fundamental dimensions that capture the brand love
majority of variance in personality ratings for brands (Aaker, 1997; Aaker et al., 2004).
This finding is robust across individuals, product categories and cultural contexts on WOM
(Aaker et al., 2001).
Fashion brands convey their personalities directly through the clothing items
themselves, or indirectly through advertising, store design, shopping malls, etc. For 389
instance, Levi Jeans and Victoria’s Secret elicit a feeling of excitement, fashionable,
youthful and outgoing. The fit between a fashion brand’s personality and the
consumer’s personality may have important implications. For example, it has been
argued, that a brand personality contributes to brand equity (Aaker, 1991) and may
lead to a more positive evaluation of the brand by the consumer. Also, by buying a
fashion brand similar to the consumer’s actual personality, he/she is communicating
something about him/herself (Aaker, 1999; Keller, 1993). Therefore, in the current
study, we argue that brand personality will contribute to enhancing brand image,
loving the brand and disseminating positive WOM.
2.3 Brand image
Brand management scholars (e.g. Aaker, 1996; Kapferer, 1997) have argued that
brand image is an essential part of powerful brands which enable brands to
differentiate their products from their competitors. Brand image is made up of
brand association (Koubaa, 2008) it is a set of perceptions about a brand as reflected
by the brand associations held in the consumers’ memory (Herzog, 1963).
Aaker (1991) defines brand associations as “the category of brand’s assets and
liabilities that include anything ‘linked’ in memory to a brand.” Associations are
informational nodes linked to the brand node in memory that contains the meaning
of the brand for consumers (Keller et al., 1998, cited in Koubaa, 2008, p. 141). Dobni
and Zinkhan (1990) argued that the product image is the result of the interaction between
the receiver and the product stimuli. Factors contributing to the development of brand
image are: product attributes, the firm, the marketing mix, the individual perceptions of
the brand, personal values, experience, type of brand users and context variables.
Sources of image formation could be either through direct experience with the brand or
brand communication (Dobni and Zinkhan, 1990).
Despite the importance of brand image in the realm of marketing, there is a lack of
theory development that has resulted in much ambiguity in its relationship with brand
personality (Patterson, 1999). At the theoretical level, both terms brand image and
brand personality have been used interchangeably in the literature (Upshaw, 1995;
Graeff, 1997). On the basis of the relational paradigm, brand image literature above and
the notion that consumers may attribute human characteristics to brands (Aaker, 1997;
Fournier, 1998), we suggest that excitement affects both brand love and brand image as
emotional outcomes. Also, we hypothesize that brand image will influence brand love.
Therefore:
H1. Excitement dimension of brand personality will have a positive impact on
brand love.

H2. Excitement dimension of brand personality will have a positive impact on

brand image.

H3. Brand image will have a positive impact on brand love.

JFMM 2.4 WOM as an outcome
16,4 Consumers imitate each other following a social or vicarious learning paradigm
(Hawkins et al., 2004), but perhaps more importantly, they also talk to each other.
WOM is described as the process that allows consumers to share information and
opinions that direct buyers toward and away from specific products, brands
and services (Hawkins et al., 2004). There is recent focus on WOM in the literature
390 on relationship marketing as a potential responses that can emerge from efforts
directed at forming relationships with consumers (e.g. Sheth and Parvatiyar, 1995;
Verhoef et al., 2002). The basic idea behind WOM is that information about
products, services, stores, companies and so on can spread from one consumer to
another. In its broadest sense, WOM communication includes any information
about a target object (e.g. company, brand) transferred from one individual to another
either in person or via some communication medium (Brown et al., 2005). More
specifically, Harrison-Walker (2001) defined WOM as “informal, person-to-person
communication between a perceived non-commercial communicator and a receiver
regarding a brand, a product, an organization or a service” (p. 63). In the current study,
we expect that brand love, excitement and brand image will have a positive influence
on WOM. That is, if consumers feel they love their brands that in turn may translate
into a desire of the recommend it to friends and relatives. We are not aware of any
previous study that has linked the relationship between brand love and WOM.
Nevertheless, prior research in marketing has linked brand image and WOM, for
example, Yavas and Shemwell (1996) propose WOM as one of the main sources of
image formation. However, in this study, we argue that both brand image and brand
personality will have a positive impact on WOM. Therefore, we hypothesize the
following hypotheses:

H4. Brand love will have a positive impact on WOM.

H5. Brand image will have a positive impact on WOM.

H6. Excitement dimension of brand personality will have a positive impact on

WOM.

3. Methodology
3.1 Questionnaire design
The questionnaire was designed as the survey instrument including all the constructs
in the proposed model to investigate the hypotheses of interest. The questionnaire
consists of two parts. The first part of the questionnaire deals with the measurement of
the constructs of the study by asking the respondent to think of a fashion brand they
feel emotionally attached to. The fashion brands have been selected because we believe
that fashion brands are hugely popular among young consumers who love the latest
and most popular designs of those brands (see the Appendix). Similarly, fashion
brands managers are trying to create and retain emotional attachment to their
brands. The measures for all the constructs in the study were drawn from previous
research. Brand image was adopted from Low and Lamb (2000). Brand love was
captured using scale developed by Carroll and Ahuvia (2006). Excitement is one of the
five dimensional BPS (Aaker, 1997). All the items were measured using a seven-point
Likert-type scale, with anchors (1) and (5) consistent with Aaker’s (1997) study. WOM
in this study modified based on a scale developed by Gremler and Gwinner (2000).
The second part of the questionnaire presents respondents’ demographic information Effects of
(i.e. gender and age). brand love
3.2 Sample design and data collection on WOM
The study was carried out in the UK using self-administered questionnaire. Applying
the convenient sampling technique, a total 250 questionnaires were obtained from
Brunel University students who were selected randomly as participants; they were 391
instructed to think about a fashion brand that they are emotionally attached to, a list
of fashion brands that frequently mentioned by students are presented in Appendix.
All the respondents were from British nationals. The respondent profile is summarized
as Table I. The sample was 38 percent male, 62 percent female and, in terms of age
group, 1.2 percent were between 16 and 18, 29.2 percent were between 18 and 20,
47.7 percent were between 20 and 22 and 21.8 percent were 22 or above.

3.3 Data analysis

The relationships of brand love, brand image, brand personality and WOM were
empirically tested using structural equation modeling (SEM) technique AMOS 16.0.

4. Empirical results
4.1 Measure reliability and validity
In this study, confirmatory factor analysis was employed. The result of the factor
analysis for the study constructs is shown in Table II.
One item (up-to-date), two items (being useful and being natural) and three items
(I have a natural feeling about this brand, I have no particular feeling about this brand
and I am passionate about this brand) were removed from the scales measuring
excitement, brand image and brand love constructs, respectively, because their loading
factors o0.5 after CFA first run. Reliability for each of the factors was obtained using
the calculation of a Cronbach’s a coefficient. The Cronbach a coefficients ranged from
0.82 to 0.91 (see Table II). In the second run, all the items were above the cut-off point of
0.5 recommended by Hair et al. (2006) and t-values for all the standardized factor
loadings of the items were found to be significant (p40.01). In addition, convergent
validity is assessed based on the factor loadings of each item of a unidimensional
construct. Convergent validity is achieved because the factor loadings of the
measurement items are significant and substantial, i.e. 40.5 (Hair et al., 2006), as well
as the model receiving a satisfactory level of fit. Also, the convergent validity of the
measures is assessed by measuring the composite reliabilities of each of the constructs.

Demographic characteristics Frequency %

Gender
Male 93 38
Female 152 62
Age
o16 1 0.4
16-18 2 0.8
18-20 71 29.2
20-22 116 47.7 Table I.
422 53 21.8 Respondent profile
JFMM Factor Cronbach
16,4 Constructs loadings a

Excitement
Daring 0.71 0.82
Spirited 0.77
392 Imaginative 0.83
Brand image
Fashionable and trendy 0.78 0.89
Reputation for quality 0.84
Elegant 0.80
Sophisticated 0.72
Well known and prestigious 0.78
Brand love
This is a wonderful brand 0.84 0.91
This brand makes me feel good 0.90
This brand is totally awesome 0.87
This brand makes me very happy 0.71
I love this brand 0.81
This brand is a pure delight 0.57
I’m very attached to this brand 0.60
Word-of-mouth
I encourage friends and family to buy this brand 0.81 0.90
I recommend this brand whenever anyone seeks my advice 0.85
Table II. If the brand been mentioned in a conversation, I would recommend this brand 0.83
Scale factor loadings I have actually recommended this brand to my friends and/or family 0.83

The results indicated high levels of construct reliability and average variance extracted
for all latent variables (see Table III). Because all t-values were significant (p ¼ 0.05)
and the average variances extracted were 40.50, convergent validity was established.
Discriminant validity “assesses the degree to which measures of different concepts are
distinct” (Bagozzi, 1994, p. 20). Discriminant validity is assessed using criteria
suggested by Fornell and Larcker (1981). In this approach, in order to establish
discriminant validity the researcher needs to compare the variance extracted estimate
for each construct with the squared interconstruct correlations associated with that
construct (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). All construct pairs in the model were tested for
discriminant validity using Fornell and Larcker’s (1981) stringent criteria. All the
variance extracted estimates are greater than the corresponding interconstruct
squared correlation estimates (see Table IV).
To summarize, the measures in the measurement model have adequate reliability,
convergent and discriminant validity. Assessment of nomological validity is based on

IC SIC

EX – BL 0.365 0.13
EX – BI 0.361 0.13
EX – WOM 0.525 0.28
Table III. BL – BI 0.737 0.54
Interconstruct squared BL – WOM 0.711 0.51
correlation estimates BI – WOM 0.608 0.37
the correlation matrix (Hair et al., 2006) provided in Table IV. The results support the Effects of
prediction that these constructs are positively related to one another and these brand love
relationships simply make sense.
The results of SEM analysis were depicted in Figure 2, the overall model were CMIN on WOM
w2 ¼ 413.782, df ¼ 146, p ¼ 0.0. The fit indices were all in acceptable ranges with
CFI ¼ 0.91, TLI ¼ 0.90 and RMSEA ¼ 0.079. Models with cut-off values above 0.90 for
CFI, and below 0.08 for RMSEA are considered to have a good fit between the 393
hypothesized model and the observed data (Hu and Bentler, 1999).

4.2 Structural model results

The structural model displayed a good fit with the data, compared with the suggested
fit criteria. The fit statistics were CMIN w2 ¼ 355.544, df ¼ 129, p ¼ 0.0. The fit indices
were all in acceptable ranges with CFI ¼ 0.93, TLI ¼ 0.91 and RMSEA ¼ 0.076. Models
with cut-off values above 0.90 for CFI, and below 0.08 for RMSEA are considered to
have a good fit between the hypothesized model and the observed data (Hu and Bentler,
1999). Figure 2 displayed all of the structural relationships among the studied
constructs; path coefficients and their significance, R2 for each dependent construct are
also presented in this figure. As indicated in Figure 1 all hypotheses, except for H1 and
H5 were supported by the data. The hypothesized relationships (H2-H4 and H6 ) were
found to be significant in the proposed directions. Additionally, in terms of the
predictive power, excitement explained 13 percent of the variance in brand image.
Excitement and brand image together account for 55 percent of the variance in brand
love. Also, the model accounts for 59 percent of the variance in WOM.

Constructs Variance extracted % Composite reliabilities

Excitement 59.33 0.81

Brand image 61.80 0.89 Table IV.
Brand love 58.85 0.91 Composite reliability
WOM 69 0.90 and variance extracted

Excitement

0.11 (1.93) 0.36 (4.83)

0.29 (4.85)
R 2=0.55 R 2=0.13
0.70 (7.81)
Brand love Brand image

0.51 (5.47)
0.13 (1.53)
Figure 2.
2=0.59 WOM Validated research model
R
JFMM Common method bias test. The common method bias implies that the covariance
16,4 among measured items is driven by the fact that some or all of the responses are
collected with the same type of scale (Hair et al., 2006, p. 833). To determine the
presence of common method variance bias among the study variables, a Harman’s
(1967) one-factor test was performed following the approach outlined by Podsakoff
et al. (1984). All the items of the study were entered into a principal component analysis
394 with varimax rotation to see if a single factor emerges from the factor analysis or one
general factor accounts for more than 50 percent of the covariation. The results
indicated that there is no single factor in the factor structure. Therefore, it does not
appear to be a common method bias concern in the present study (Table V).

5. Discussion and conclusions

The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between brand image and
brand love, as well as the impact of the excitement dimension of brand personality
upon brand love. Furthermore, the influence of those constructs on the WOM. The
results of the study indicate that excitement will not have a direct impact on brand
love, however, the indirect impact through brand image were found to be significant.
This is the first research to test this relationship. The same constructs were found
to influence WOM with the exception of brand image. Also, the variables were found to
capture the majority of the variation in WOM. These results may be explained by the
relational paradigm, and the notion of attributing human characteristics to brands
(Aaker, 1997; Fournier, 1998), which will lead to loving the brand as an emotional
outcome.
Following this causal model, the strategy should be for fashion brand to use brand
personality and brand image to increase the emotional relationships with their brands.
As a result of building an emotional relationship with their customers, companies will
make their customers positively talk about their brands. If this is attained, the number
of customers using the brand could probably be increased and in turn the company
may report a jump in profits. Another result worth discussing is that the insignificant
influence of brand image on WOM, we think this relationship need to be replicated and
further more investigated in future research. Although the significant impact seems to
be absent, it can be argued that the effect of brand image on the WOM is mediated by
loving the brand. This is logically valid from a practical point of view, when the
projected brand image fit with the image customer wants others to hold about him/her,
it will make him positively talk about the brand.
Based on the above findings, the conceptual model has shown the direct effects of
brand personality and brand image on brand love and WOM. In general, the reliability
and validity of the results presented in this study is considered acceptable. However,
validity is limited to the constructs, measures, samples and fashion brands we have

Hypotheses Path estimates t-values Test results

H1: Excitement-brand love 0.11 1.93 Rejected

H2: Excitement-brand image 0.36 4.83 Accepted
H3: Brand love-word-of-mouth 0.51 5.47 Accepted
H4: Brand image-word-of-mouth 0.13 1.53 Rejected
Table V. H5: Brand image-brand love 0.70 7.81 Accepted
Hypothesis-testing results H6: Excitement-word-of-mouth 0.29 4.85 Accepted
studied. Thus, conclusions regarding the different effects in the study are, in principle, Effects of
limited to the sample used in the study. The extant love research seems to be solely in brand love
the US context. To the best of our knowledge, we think that this is the first study to
investigate the concept of brand love outside the USA. Therefore, future research on WOM
also could examine whether these effects are different depending on the types of brands
being investigated in other contexts. Also, we think the examination of the brand
experience as comparatively new construct may contribute to our understanding of the 395
consumer-brand relationships.
Future research could examine the proposed relationships and use moderators such
as gender or age. Research could also examine this framework on different categories
of brands. Finally, our results have a number of implications for brand managers. First,
brand managers should undertake ongoing research with their target customers to
understand the relationships between the brands and their customers. Second, brands
should give careful consideration to the concept of love and how can they develop it.

References
Aaker, D.A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand Name, The Free
Press, New York, NY.
Aaker, D.A. (1996), Building Strong Brands, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Aaker, J.L. (1997), “Dimensions of brand personality”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 47-56.
Aaker, J. (1999), “The malleable self: the role of self-expression in persuasion”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 45-57.
Aaker, J., Fournier, S. and Brasel, A. (2004), “When good brands do bad”, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 1-16.
Aaker, J.L., Benet-Martinez, V. and Garolera, J. (2001), “Consumption symbols as carriers of
culture: a study of Japanese and Spanish brand personality constructs”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 81 No. 3, pp. 492-508.
Ahuvia, A.C. (2005), “Beyond the extended self: love objects and consumer’s identity narratives”,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 171-84.
Albert, N., Merunka, D. and Vallette-Florence, P. (2008), “When consumers love their brands:
exploring the concept and its dimensions”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 61 No. 10,
pp. 1062-75.
Aron, A. and Aron, E.N. (1986), Love and the Expansion of Self: Understanding Attraction and
Satisfaction, Hemisphere, Washington, DC.
Bagozzi, R.P. (1994), Principles of Marketing Research, Blackwell Publishers, Cambridge, MA.
Birtwistle, G. and Freathy, P. (1998), “More than just a name above the shop: a comparison of
the branding strategies of two UK fashion retailers”, International Journal of Retail &
Distribution Management, Vol. 26 No. 8, pp. 318-23.
Brown, T.J., Barry, T.E., Dacin, P.A. and Gunst, R.F. (2005), “Spreading the word: antecedents of
consumers’ positive word-of-mouth intentions and behaviours in a retailing context”,
Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 123-38.
Burt, S. and Sparks, L. (2002), “Corporate branding, retailing and retail internationalisation”,
Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 5 Nos 2/3, pp. 194-212.
Carroll, B.A. and Ahuvia, A. (2006), “Some antecedents and outcomes of brand love”, Marketing
Letters, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 79-89.
Dobni, D. and Zinkhan, G.M. (1990), “In search of brand image: a foundation analysis”, in
Goldberg, M.E., Gorn, G. and Pollay, R.W. (Eds), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 17,
Association of Consumer Research, New Orleans, LA, pp. 110-18.
JFMM Fehr, B. (1988), “Prototype analysis of the concepts of love and commitment”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 55 No. 4, pp. 557-79.
16,4
Fionda, A. and Moore, C. (2009), “The anatomy of the luxury fashion brand”, Journal of Brand
Management, Vol. 16 Nos 5-6, p. 347.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement errors”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
396 Fournier, S. (1998), “Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in consumer
research”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 343-73.
Graeff, T.R. (1997), “Consumption situations and the effects of brand image on consumers’ brand
evaluations”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 49-70.
Gremler, D.D. and Gwinner, K.P. (2000), “Customer-employee rapport in service relationships”,
Journal of Service Research, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 82-104.
Hair, J.F. Jr, Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (2006), Multivariate Data Analysis,
Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hankinson, G. (2004), “The brand images of tourism destinations: a study of the saliency of
organic images”, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 6-14.
Harman, H.H. (1967), Modern Factor Analysis, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Harrison-Walker, L.J. (2001), “E-complaining: a content analysis of an internet complaint
forums”, Journal of Service Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 397-412.
Hatfield, E. and Sprecher, S. (1985), “Measuring passionate love in intimate relations”,
unpublished manuscript, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, HI.
Hatfield, E. and Sprecher, S. (1986), “Measuring passionate love in intimate relationships”,
Journal of Adolescence, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 383-410.
Hawkins, D.I., Best, R. and Coney, K.A. (2004), Consumer Behavior: Building Marketing Strategy,
9th ed., McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA.
Herzog, H. (1963), “Behavioral science concepts for analyzing the consumer”, Marketing and the
Behavioral Sciences, in Bliss, P. (Ed.), Allyn and Bacon Inc, Boston, MA, pp. 76-86.
Hu, L. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), “Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis:
conventional criteria versus new alternatives”, Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 6 No. 1,
pp. 1-55.
Kapferer, J.N. (1997), Strategic Brand Management: Creating and Sustaining Brand Equity Long
Term, 2nd ed., Kogan Page Limited, London.
Keller, K.L. (1993), “Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
Keller, K.L., Heckler, S.E. and Houston, M.J. (1998), “The effects of brand name suggestiveness on
advertising recall”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62 No. 1, pp. 48-57.
Koubaa, Y. (2008), “Country of origin, brand image perception, and brand image structure”, Asia
Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 139-55.
Lee, J.A. (1977), “A typology of styles of loving”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 3
No. 2, pp. 73-182.
Lewis, B.R. and Hawksley, A.W. (1990), “Gaining a competitive advantage in fashion retailing”,
International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 21-32.
Liu, S.C. and Choi, T.M. (2009), “Consumer attitude towards brand extensions of designer-labels
and mass-market labels in Hong Kong”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management,
Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 527-40.
Low, G.S. and Lamb, C.W. (2000), “The measurement and dimensionality of brand association”,
Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 9 No. 6, pp. 350-68.
McColl, J. and Moore, C. (2011), “An exploration of fashion retailer own brand strategies”, Journal Effects of
of Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 91-107.
brand love
Moore, C. (1995), “From rags to riches: creating and benefiting from the fashion own-brand”,
International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 23 No. 9, pp. 19-27. on WOM
Moore, C. and Doyle, S. (2010), “The evolution of a luxury brand: the case of Prada”, International
Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 38 Nos 11/12, pp. 915-27.
Moore, C.M. and Birtwistle, G. (2005), “The nature of parenting advantage in luxury fashion 397
retailing: the case of Gucci group NV”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution
Management, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 256-70.
Patterson, M. (1999), “Re-appraising the concept of brand image”, Journal of Brand Management,
Vol. 6 No. 6, pp. 409-26.
Podsakoff, P.M., Todor, W.D., Grover, R.A. and Huber, V.L. (1984), “Situational moderators of
leader reward and punishment behaviors: fact or fiction?”, Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 21-63.
Rubin, Z. (1973), Liking and Loving: An Invitation to Social Psychology, Holt, Rinehart & Winston,
New York, NY.
Sheth, J.N. and Parvatiyar, A. (1995), “Relationship marketing in consumer markets:
antecedents and consequences”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 23
No. 4, pp. 255-71.
Shimp, T.A. and Madden, T.J. (1988), “Consumer-object relations: a conceptual framework based
analogously on Sternberg’s triangular theory of love”, Advances in Consumer Research,
Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 163-8.
Sternberg, R.J. (1986), “A triangular theory of love”, Psychological Review, Vol. 93 No. 2,
pp. 119-35.
Taraban, C.B. and Hendrick, C. (1995), “Personality perceptions associated with six styles of
love”, Journal of Social & Personal Relationships, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 453-61.
Upshaw, L. (1995), Building Brand Identity: A Strategy for Success in a Hostile Market Place,
John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.
Veloutsou, C., Gioulistanis, E. and Moutinho, L. (2004), “Own labels choice and perceived
characteristics in Greece and Scotland: factors influencing the willingness to buy”, Journal
of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 228-41.
Verhoef, P.C., Franses, P. and Hoekstra, J.C. (2002), “The effect of relational constructs on
customer referrals and number of services purchased from a multiservice provider: does
age of relationship matter?”, Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 30 No. 3,
pp. 202-12.
Wigley, S.M. (2011), “Market-facing strategic alliances in the fashion sector”, Journal of Fashion
Marketing and Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 141-62.
Wigley, S.M., Moore, C.M. and Birtwistle, G. (2005), “Product and brand: critical success factors in
the internationalisation of a fashion retailer”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution
Management, Vol. 33 No. 7, pp. 531-44.
Yavas, U. and Shemwell, D.J. (1996), “Competing for patients and profit”, Journal of Health Care
Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 30-7.

Further reading
Berscheid, E. and Walster, E.H. (1974), “A little bit about love”, in Huston, T.L. (Ed.), Foundations
of Interpersonal Attraction, Academic Press, New York, NY, pp. 157-215.
Bowlby, J. (1969), Attachment and Loss: Vol. 1. Attachment, Basic Books, New York, NY.
JFMM Hazan, C. and Shaver, P.R. (1994), “Attachment as an organizational framework for research on
close relationships”, Psychological Inquiry, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
16,4
Hendrick, C. and Hendrick, S. (1986), “A theory and method of love”, Journal of Personality &
Social Psychology, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 392-402.
Rubin, Z. (1970), “Measurement of romantic love”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 265-73.
398 Shaver, P., Hazan, C. and Bradshaw, D. (1988), “Love as attachment: the integration of three
behavioral systems”, in Sternberg, R.J. and Barnes, M.L. (Eds), The Psychology of Love,
Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, pp. 68-99.

Appendix

Brand Brand

NIKE FCUK
Topshop Dior
Gucci Primark
Adidas Abercrombie & Fitch
River Island Prada
Armani Next
Diesel Louis Vuitton
Dolce & Gabbana Zara
LACOSTE DKNY
Converse New look
Hollister Ralph Lauren
G-star Chloè
Guess Miss Sixty
Ed hardy Topman
MAC cosmetics H&M
Dorothy Perkins Chanel
Hugo Boss Pineapple
Mango Levis
Table AI. Miu Miu Esprit
Fashion brands that Vivienne Westwood Burberry
frequently mentioned Christian Louboutin Jane Norman
in this study Roxy

Corresponding author
Ahmed Rageh Ismail can be contacted at: [email protected] or [email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints