|
6.2 Cognitive brand loyalty
Just as within the behavioral brand loyalty,
pleasure
could be connected to cognitive brand
loyalty. The respondents said that they already before a purchase knew that the result would
be pleasing and thinking about that made them satisfied. Having a product, which you can
trust, that performs as expected, was considered very pleasing. Another aspect that was
brought up and seen as pleasing was the environmentally friendly aspect. It was said by the
respondents that purchasing a product, which they knew were environmentally friendly were
pleasing in the sense that they felt good for maintaining an as healthy environment as
possible. It was more of a surprise that
pleasure
could be drawn to cognitive brand loyalty
than to behavioral and emotional brand loyalty. The fact that the respondents actually referred
to a thought process taking place where one were able to think back and be aware of your
working product seemed far-fetched, but it was something that was referred to by the
respondents. It was stated that one could think quite a lot on whether a product work or not. A
product that did not work could be seen as a distraction in the mind, which one could think of
and be affected by. On the other hand, being able to have in mind one’s properly working
product would be very pleasing.
44
The fact that the respondents thought about the product and the
pleasure
they got from the
product in the extent they did, made it possible for the researchers to draw a connection
between
quality
and cognitive brand loyalty. The
quality
was important and something the
respondents thought of before the purchase. A qualitative product that performed as expected
gave
pleasure
, just even when they were thinking about it, something that was thought of as a
bit surprising by the researchers.
The facet
risk probability
could be connected to cognitive brand loyalty. The respondent said
that they would stick to the same brand, as they knew it would work. But often, if they knew
the product of that certain brand worked, they could think of trying another product within the
same brand. That would give them the opportunity to try a new product while still being
considerably sure that the product would work, since one could trust that brand. This does not
affect the behavioral brand loyalty as they still purchase from the same brand. Risk
importance could neither be connected to cognitive brand loyalty as the very few times the
respondent purchased the wrong product, it did not matter that much. It was not something
they put a lot of thought into, it was more of an emotional response. Quester and Lim (1985)
mentions the five facets compiled by Kapferer and Laurent (2003) and state that there are
possibilities of a relationship between low product involvement and brand loyalty, even
though research generally only relates high product involvement towards brand loyalty. As
been examined in this research, some facets are possible to relate to brand loyalty. Risk
importance however cannot be connected to the relationship between low product
involvement and brand loyalty whatsoever. This study supports Quester and Lim (2003)
regarding the fact that it is possible for a relationship between low product involvement and
brand loyalty to exist, even though it might not be through all of the five facets compiled by
Kapferer and Laurent (1985).
As been examined in this research, some facets are possible to relate to brand loyalty.
However, neither sign nor interest were facets that could be related to the relationship
between low product involvement and brand loyalty.
Interest could neither be connected to the cognitive brand loyalty. This as the respondents did
not have any interest in the product at all in any level. They even had a hard time to
understand the fact that one could have an interest to these types of products. This meant that
45
they did not have anything to say regarding how their thinking in terms of interest affected
them to be brand loyal towards a certain product. The same regarded the sign facet; the
respondents said that they had not purchased any product due to what it said about them as a
person. Therefore they had no thoughts of the sign value of the product. Since this did not
affect the purchase behavior among the respondents, there was no surprise that it neither
existed a thought process regarding these facets.
The sentimental aspect, regarding purchasing the same brand as one’s family members did,
could not be connected to the cognitive aspect of brand loyalty. This due to the fact the same
product is purchased not because of the person’s thoughts about the product; it is rather an
emotional response. The awareness of past experience of the product working could not be
connected to cognitive brand loyalty. The interpretation was according to the researches that
this was not something that the respondent thought much about. It was considered more as an
emotional attachment towards something that one was growing up with, an awareness of a
product and its benefit rather than a lot of thoughts regarding the product.
Figure 3
-
The
Cognitive brand loyalty
model
shows the facets/factors of low product
involvement previously mentioned in the chapter and how they are related to behavioral brand
loyalty. The green ones show the how
pleasure, risk probability
and
quality
are related to
cognitive brand loyalty.
46
Figure 3-
Cognitive brand loyalty model
. (Ingemansson, Nilsson & Vllasalija, 2015)
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
