This paper applies Susan Fournier's theory of consumer-brand relationships to the auto repair services category, examining brands such as Midas and dealership service centers. The paper evaluates whether consumers genuinely form emotional attachments to auto repair brands, arguing that such relationships are largely pragmatic rather than affective. It considers the role of brand saturation in distribution, the tendency of consumers to anthropomorphize their vehicles, and the possibility that dealer service relationships are extensions of consumers' attachments to automobile brands. The paper concludes that while Fournier's theory holds in ideal circumstances, brand relationships in auto repair are the exception rather than the rule.
When Fournier (1998) discusses having a relationship with a brand, she means that consumers sometimes develop an attachment to a brand itself, rather than to the product it represents. The brand begins to carry importance that goes beyond the product's functionality. Importantly, the notion of a brand relationship is not a true two-way street — it is, as Fournier acknowledges, an imperfect metaphor.
The product category under consideration here is auto repair. Two relevant brands are Midas and the dealership where a consumer's car was originally purchased. In this category, it is arguable that consumers do not genuinely form relationships with these brands. In most cases, the relationship with a mechanic or repair shop is pragmatic — the service provider has value primarily because of its ability to fix the car. The brand itself is relatively irrelevant.
There may be a relationship with a specific location within a given chain, formed either through personal relationships with staff or through consistently satisfactory service. However, such a relationship does not typically extend beyond that single location and cannot be attributed to the brand as a whole.
Based on both personal experience and an understanding of brand relationship theory, it is reasonable to conclude that consumers do not have relationships with all brands — but they do have relationships with some. The loyalty that certain consumers show toward brands like Apple or Corona beer, for example, transcends the actual functional benefits of the product. In many categories, consumers demonstrate a preference for a particular brand that seems to outweigh the tangible advantages of that product or service. However, this dynamic applies only to select products and categories, and it does not apply universally.
The key to distribution of auto repair services lies in the buildout of physical locations. A company like Midas has achieved a high degree of geographic saturation. Many major automakers have similarly extensive networks of dealer service centers. Both types of brands can be strong enough to persuade consumers to travel past their nearest repair shop in favor of a familiar name. However, brand loyalty in this category is generally fairly low.
"Midas and dealer networks rely on saturation over loyalty"
"Consumers anthropomorphize cars, extending loyalty to dealers"
Overall, Fournier's ideas about brand relationships hold true, but for the marketer they only hold true in the ideal situation. For most consumers, a brand relationship is not likely to be formed. There is no guarantee that brand relationships will ever develop, but they can certainly emerge given the right conditions and successful marketing. When brand relationships do form — as we see with automobile brands — those relationships can be extended to associated products and services carrying the same brand name.
You’re 62% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.