This article was downloaded by: [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online ISCTE]On: 27 November 2012, At: 03:40Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Promotion ManagementPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjpm20

Explaining Love of Wine BrandsSandra Maria Correia Loureiro a & Hans Ruediger Kaufmann b ca University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugalb University of Nicosia, Nicosia, Cyprusc International Business School of Vilnius University, Vilnius,LithuaniaVersion of record first published: 09 Aug 2012.

To cite this article: Sandra Maria Correia Loureiro & Hans Ruediger Kaufmann (2012): Explaining Loveof Wine Brands, Journal of Promotion Management, 18:3, 329-343

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10496491.2012.696460

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Journal of Promotion Management, 18:329–343, 2012Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1049-6491 print / 1540-7594 onlineDOI: 10.1080/10496491.2012.696460

Explaining Love of Wine Brands

SANDRA MARIA CORREIA LOUREIROUniversity of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal

HANS RUEDIGER KAUFMANNUniversity of Nicosia, Nicosia, Cyprus; Visiting Professor, International Business School of

Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania

The current study focuses on whether or not customer expertise in-fluences the relationship between brand love of wine and satisfac-tion, brand image, worth-of-mouth, and loyalty. Findings suggestthat wine consumers satisfied with their preferred wine brand andconscious of a good brand image are more likely to love wine, buyit, and encourage others to buy and give advice. As a result, whendeveloping, labeling, and managing a wine brand, wine man-agers should focus on positive emotions toward the wine, planningfor favorable experience with the wine, and creating an image oftrustworthiness.

KEYWORDS wine, brand love, brand image, satisfaction, loyalty,word-of-mouth

INTRODUCTION

Whether entrenched in culture over centuries in the old world or experi-mented with in the new world, wine inspires fascination and passion. Onceregarded as a luxury good and only reserved for a few elitists, it has nowbecome a “widespread consumer good enjoyed by a much wider socio-economic range of increasingly sophisticated consumers in many countries”(Bruwer & Wood, 2005, p. 194). Consumer research could contribute to un-derstand the aspects of a product and its promotion these diverse consumersuse to make their purchase decision. This type of research can guide winer-ies and distributors to highlight or even change important aspects to bettersuit consumer needs, which, due to the hedonistic characteristics of the wine

Address correspondence to Hans Ruediger Kaufmann, School of Business, University ofNicosia, 46 Makedonitissas Avenue, P.O. Box 24005, 1700 Nicosia, Cyprus. E-mail: kaufmann.r@unic.ac.cy

329

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e IS

CT

E]

at 0

3:40

27

Nov

embe

r 20

12

330 S. M. Correia Loureiro and H. R. Kaufmann

product, have to be differentiated from those relating to other brands. Espe-cially in the context of wine purchase, consumers’ decision-making is oftenan unconscious process entailing, in fact, many features or attributes entan-gled in complex combinations. So far, research has only provided partialunderstanding on how consumers really compare and then choose or rec-ommend wines by focusing on individual facets (e.g., brand, price, region,label, color), specific consumer segments (e.g., heavy buyers), gender, orcultural contexts.

A study conducted in Australia revealed that brand was the most impor-tant factor for consumers’ wine choice, closely followed by price and medals(Lockshin, Mueller, Louviere, Francis, & Osidacz, 2009). In this study, eightdifferent Australian brands were tested, representing four different tiers ofbrand reputation from very well-known brands (such as Wolf Blass andHardys) to unknown brands (such as Basalt Ridge and Duck Hollow).The total effect of difference in choice between these brands was mainlycaused by one brand with a very high reputation, while only small dif-ferences between medium-known and unknown brands were found. Thisconfirms the strong impact of a very well-known and positioned winebrand.

In Portugal, wine culture has been flourishing for centuries. Severalbrands from regions such as Dao, Alentejo, or Bairrada are internationallyknown. At the top of the list is the Port wine from the Douro valley. TheDouro valley was the first officially demarcated wine appellation in the world(Eighteenth Century) created under the guidance of Marques do Pombal. Portgot its name from the city of Oporto, which is situated at the mouth of the560-mile long Rio Douro or River of Gold. Although many port-style winesare made around the world (Australia, South Africa, and United States), thestrict usage of the terms Port or Porto is reserved only to wines produced inPortugal.

The aforementioned considerations show that wine consumers havethe knowledge and experience to name and identify wine brands, both na-tional and foreign brands. Beyond these more cognitive aspects, the mainaim of this paper is to propose a model explaining and interrelating an-tecedents and outcomes of the brand love of wine, thus far neglected inliterature. By brand love of wine, we mean the degree of passionate emo-tional attachment a satisfied consumer has for a particular wine of a particularbrand.

This article is structured as follows. First, we present a review of theconcepts and the relationship among constructs, such as brand love, sat-isfaction, brand image, and outcomes of brand love of wine. During theliterature review the research model and hypotheses have been derived.Then, we explain the process to collect and treat data in order to test themodel. Finally, we present the conclusions and implications.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e IS

CT

E]

at 0

3:40

27

Nov

embe

r 20

12

Explaining Love of Wine Brands 331

LITERATURE REVIEW

Brand Love as a Complex Phenomenon

The wine culture has strong ancestral roots with the Roman Empire havingimmensely influenced the development of viticulture and oenology. As theRoman Empire expanded, wine production in the provinces grew to thepoint where the provinces were competing with Roman wines. One cansay that the major wine producing regions of Western Europe today wereestablished by the Romans.

Wine is often associated with poetry, pleasure, and love. In Egypt, forexample, wine played an important role in ancient ceremonial life. Simi-larly, ancient Greece had a god, Dionysos, dedicated to wine, pleasure, andfestival.

Love is regarded as a very complex emotion, probably the most complexof all. Strongman (1996) states that love includes various emotions, some ofthem being positive. The following positive emotions contribute to explainthis very complex phenomenon: interest, joy, pleasure, happiness, euphoria,victory, intense own satisfaction, delight, and so many others. This researchregards brand love of wine as the central construct.

Given the complexity of the construct including aspects of brandingand consumer behavior as antecedents and consequences, interpersonal lovetheory (Sternberg, 1986) alone does not allow for the discovery of specificdimensions of brand love.

In consumer research, Thomson, MacInnis, and Park (2005) identifieda higher-order emotional attachment construct consisting of three factors:affection, passion, and connection. Thus, attachment reflects an emotionalbond similar to love. Ahuvia (1993, 2005a, 2005b) pioneered empirical re-search in the field of brand love and investigated in detail consumers’ abilityto love products and consumption activities using an interpretive paradigm.He found that many consumers do have intense emotional attachments tosome love objects such as a brand, a product, or a service.

According to Carroll and Ahuvia (2006), brand love is defined as thedegree of passionate emotional attachment a satisfied consumer has for aparticular trade name.

The interpersonal triangular theory of love (Sternberg, 1986) adaptedto the consumption context is closely related to the emotional attachmentconstruct; it considers that brand love is made up of dimensions such as:passion, intimacy, and commitment (Kamat & Parulekar 2007; Keh, Pang, &Peng, 2007). Similarly, Ahuvia (1993) suggests that consumers can have realfeelings of love toward an object and conceptualizes the love as having twodimensions: real and desired integration.

Regarding models that integrate the brand love concept, three influentialones can be found: the holistic approach proposed by Fournier (1998), the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e IS

CT

E]

at 0

3:40

27

Nov

embe

r 20

12

332 S. M. Correia Loureiro and H. R. Kaufmann

causal approach of Carroll and Ahuvia (2006), and the systemic approachof Batra, Ahuvia, and Bagozzi (2008). Fournier (1998) suggests six strongrelationships and is interested in the different relationships a consumer mayhave with a brand. Batra et al. (2008) integrate the seven dimensions ofperceived functional quality, self-related cognitions, positive affect, negativeaffect, satisfaction, attitude strength, and loyalty into a model of brand loverelationship; however, they do not differentiate between antecedents andoutcomes of the consumer’s love for a brand and do not explicitly use theconstruct of love.

Reversely, Carrol and Ahuvia (2006) model the relationships betweenbrand love and both its antecedents and consequences. They propose thatbrand love is influenced by a hedonic product and self-expressive brand andhas a positive effect on brand loyalty and positive word-of-mouth.

Carroll and Ahuvia (2006) also highlight that brand love includes awillingness to declare love (as if the brand were a person) and involvesintegration of the brand into a consumer’s identity. A consumer’s love towarda brand is greater for brands that play a significant role in shaping theconsumer’s identity and as an image that fits somehow to the way of theconsumer is, for example, transferred by a trustworthy, reliable, likeable, andattractive brand.

Brand Image and Satisfaction

A concept closely affiliated with positioning which can contribute to thisemotional bond between brand and consumer is brand image. Brand im-age refers to the set of associations linked to the brand that consumershold in memory (Keller, 1993). In this way, the meaning of brands is con-structed in two different ways: firstly, there is a primary meaning of the brand,which contains the benefits associated with it, and the physical attributes ofthe brand, and, secondly, an implicit meaning, made up of emotional andpsychological meanings of brand attributes, and other associations (Corbu,2009).

Linking brand love to the concept of consumer satisfaction, Fournierand Mick (1999), in their discussion of the various modes of consumersatisfaction, suggest that “satisfaction-as-love probably constitutes the mostintense and profound satisfaction of all” (p. 11).

However, as Carroll and Ahuvia (2006) point out, “brand love and satis-faction are different constructs” (p. 81) and, therefore, being satisfied with awine product can lead to the situation that the consumer loves it. Consumersatisfaction has been the subject of much attention in literature (e.g., Oliver,1977, 1980; Rust & Oliver, 1994; Loureiro, 2010a). Giese and Cote (2000) pro-vide a thorough review of conceptual and operational definitions. Based ona literature review, the authors outline three general components shared bythe definitions, that is, consumer satisfaction is a response, an emotional or

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e IS

CT

E]

at 0

3:40

27

Nov

embe

r 20

12

Explaining Love of Wine Brands 333

Satisfaction

Brand image

-Word-of-mouth

Brand loyalty

Brand loveof wine

H1

H2

H3

H4

Experiencewith winecustomer expertise

H5bH5c

H5dH5a

FIGURE 1 Proposed model.

cognitive judgment; the response refers to a specific focus and the responseis linked to a particular moment (such as prior to purchase, after purchase,after consumption) (Giese & Cote, p.15). In this study, satisfaction is viewedas a post-consumption evaluation (e.g., Johnson, Gustafsson, Andreassen,Lervik, & Cha., 2001; Loureiro, 2010a).

Based on the aforementioned considerations, the following hypothesesare formulated (see Figure 1):

H1: Brand satisfaction impacts positively on brand love.H2: Brand image impacts positively on brand love.

Outcomes of Brand Love of Wine

Relating to the ultimate achievement of consumer satisfaction, Oliver (1999,p. 34) defines brand loyalty as a deeply held commitment to re-buy a pre-ferred good/service consistently in the future, thereby causing repetitivesame-brand purchasing, despite situational influences, and marketing effortshaving the potential to cause switching behavior. This definition emphasizestwo different aspects of brand loyalty that have been described in previouswork on the concept: behavioral and attitudinal. Behavioral, or purchase loy-alty consists of repeated purchases of the brand, whereas attitudinal brandloyalty includes a degree of dispositional commitment in terms of someunique value associated with the brand (Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001; Odin,Odin, & Valette-Florence, 2001). In this research, we will concentrate mostlyin the behavioral loyalty. In this way, consumers satisfied and in love with abrand are more willing to repurchase and to recommend it to others (Carroll& Ahuvia, 2006; Loureiro, 2010b) and the following hypotheses are proposed(see Figure 1):

H3: Brand love has a positive impact on word-of-mouth.H4: Brand love has a positive impact on loyalty.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e IS

CT

E]

at 0

3:40

27

Nov

embe

r 20

12

334 S. M. Correia Loureiro and H. R. Kaufmann

Experience with Wine and Customer Expertise

Interestingly, knowledge was a factor not explicitly included yet in the dis-cussion on conceptualization related to brand love. Consumer knowledgehas been studied in western countries (Guo & Meng, 2008), and the levelof knowledge partially explains consumer behavior and activities. Past re-search has found that experts and novices differ in the amount, contentand organization of their knowledge reflected in large variances when theyperform product-related tasks (Aurier & Ngobo, 1999). Two major dimen-sions of consumer knowledge can be distinguished, namely, familiarity orproduct-related consumption (Muthukrishnan & Weitz, 1991) and productknowledge or subjective expertise which is the sum of product class infor-mation and rules stored in memory, that is, cues to evaluate their familiaritywith the product (Bloch, Ridgway, & Sherrell, 1989).

Referred to by a variety of authors in the previous discussion, consumerexperience is conceptualized as sensations, feelings, cognitions, and behav-ioral responses evoked by brand-related or product-related stimuli. In thecase of a brand, the stimuli are part of a brand’s design and identity, pack-aging, communications, and environments where the consumer has beenexposed to the brand (Murray, 1985; Brakus, Schmitt, & Zarantonello, 2009).

Based on the aforementioned considerations, in this study, the expertiseof wine experts is regarded as a moderator. We define expert consumers asthose who feel comfortable in the world of wine, have a great deal ofexperience in buying wine, and frequently shop for wine. Consumers withexpert knowledge and high levels of experience in wine should be morewilling to love wine. As a result, we postulated the following hypotheses:

H5a: The higher the level of expertise, the greater the positive relationshipbetween customers’ satisfaction and brand love of wine.

H5b: The higher the level of expertise, the greater the positive relationshipbetween brand image and brand love of wine.

H5c: The higher the level of expertise, the greater the positive relationshipbetween brand love of wine and word-of-mouth.

H5d: The higher the level of expertise, the greater the positive relationshipbetween brand love of wine and loyalty.

METHODOLOGY

Sample and Data Collection

The questionnaire that captured both latent and demographic variables waspre-tested using 20 master students and wine experts personally interviewed,which resulted in minor changes to wording of some questions. Then, anonline survey was launched in Portugal during January and February of 2011.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e IS

CT

E]

at 0

3:40

27

Nov

embe

r 20

12

Explaining Love of Wine Brands 335

TABLE 1 Demographic Characteristics.

Age Gender Qualification

18–25: 26.9% Female: 48.6% School—Standard level: 3.7%26–35: 29.9% Male: 51.4% School—High level: 20.9%36–45: 22.1% University Degree: 50.3%46–55: 13.8% University Higher Degree (Masters, Ph.D.): 25.1%56–65: 4.4%> 65: 2.9%

The main target population is young and mature women and men who arewine drinkers, even if they are just occasional drinkers, or even non-drinkersthat purchase wine as a gift for friends, colleagues, or family and, therefore,have some wine culture.

In this way, universities in the North and South of Continental Portugal,as well as in the Azores and Madeira, were contacted in order to accessstudents and staff. The Wine Commissions and wine Demarcated Regionswere also contacted. The target of potential respondents was approximately2000 participants and yielded a total response of 476 with a response rate of24%. The sample (476) was split almost equal between genders. Over 50% ofthe respondents were under 46 years old (Table 1). Most of the respondentshave a university degree and 47.4% are married or partnered with or withoutchildren.

Measurement

The items in the questionnaire were first written in English, translated intoPortuguese, and then back translated to English. Back translation was usedto ensure that the items in Portuguese communicated similar informationas those in English (Brislin, 1970; Sekaran, 1983), meaning that concep-tual equivalence was assured. The questionnaire was developed so that

Satisfaction

Brand image

Word-of-mouthR2 = 54.3%

Brand loyaltyR2 = 46.9%

Brand loveof wine

R2 = 77.0%

0.652***

0.257**

0.737***

0.685***

**p<0.01; ***p<0.001

GoF= 0.7

FIGURE 2 Structural results (full sample).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e IS

CT

E]

at 0

3:40

27

Nov

embe

r 20

12

336 S. M. Correia Loureiro and H. R. Kaufmann

TABLE 2 Measurement Results.

ConstructLV IndexValues

ItemLoading

Compositereliability AVE

Brand Image 3.8 0.942 0.764I1:This wine brand is

trustworthy.0.867

I2: This is a reliable winebrand.

0.913

I3: This wine brand is likeable. 0.836I4: This wine brand is a very

good brand.0.901

I5: This is a very appealingwine brand.

0.851

Satisfaction 3.5 0.931 0.771S1:I am satisfied with this wine

brand and its features.0.819

S2: My choice to get this winebrand has been a wise one.

0.884

S3: I feel good about mydecision to get this winebrand.

0.912

S4: I am happy with this winebrand.

0.893

Brand love of wine 3.2 0.954 0.723LW1: I am passionate about

this wine brand.0.823

LW2: This wine brand istotally awesome.

0.875

LW3: This wine brand makesme very happy.

0.862

LW4: This is a wonderful winebrand.

0.886

LW5: This wine brand is apure delight.

0.863

LW6: This wine brand makesme feel good.

0.850

LW7: I’m very attached to thiswine brand.

0.837

LW8: I love this wine brand. 0.806Word-of-mouth 3.6 0.923 0.799W1: I have said positive things

about this wine brand toother people.

0.906

W2: I have encouraged otherpeople to buy this winebrand.

0.873

W3: I have recommended thiswine brand to people whoseek my advice.

0.902

Loyalty 3.5 0.888 0.799L1: I will buy this brand the

next time I buy wine.0.878

L2: I intend to keeppurchasing this wine brand.

0.910

AVE = Average Variance Extracted.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e IS

CT

E]

at 0

3:40

27

Nov

embe

r 20

12

Explaining Love of Wine Brands 337

respondents could focus on their favorite wine brand: “Concerning yourfavorite wine brand, to which extent do you agree with the following state-ments.” Respondents rated all measures on a 5-point Likert scale rangingfrom 1 (Completely Disagree) to 5 (Completely Agree).

Brand love related to wine was measured using eight items adapted fromCarroll and Ahuvia (2006). Brand image was measured with five items basedon Woisetschlager (2007) and Woisetschlager, Hartleb, and Blut (2008). Sat-isfaction was measured using four items based on Brakus et al. (2009). Word-of-mouth was assessed with three items (Zeithaml, Berry, & Parasuraman,1996) and loyalty with two items based on Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001).In order to measure the experience with wine, the questionnaire used threeitems: I don’t feel comfortable in the world of wine (reversed); I have a greatdeal of experience in buying wine; I frequently shop for wine.

RESULTS

To analyze data, we used partial least squares (PLS), which employs acomponent-based approach for estimation purposes (Lohmoller, 1988) andplaces minimal restrictions on the sample’s size and residual distributions(Chin, Marcolin, & Newsted, 2003). We also tested a moderating effect (highand low expertise group) using two sub-samples (which contributed to re-duce the sample size). In this vein, first, the adequacy of the measures (seeTable 2 and Table 3) was assessed by evaluating the reliability of the individ-ual measures and the discriminant validity of the constructs (Hulland, 1999).All the loadings of items exceed 0.707, which indicates that over 50% of thevariance in the observed variable is explained by the construct (Carmines &Zeller, 1979) (see Table 2).

Composite reliability was used to analyze the internal consistency ofthe constructs, since this method is considered a more exact measure thanCronbach’s alpha (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Table 2 shows that all constructsare reliable since the composite reliability values exceed the threshold of0.7 and exceed even the stricter threshold of 0.8 (Nunnally, 1978). The mea-sures also demonstrate that the convergent validity as the average variance

TABLE 3 Discriminant Validity.

Correlations

Construct Brand image Brand love of wine Loyalty Satisfaction Word-of-mouth

AVE1/2 0.875 0.851 0.899 0.878 0.894Brand image 1.000 0.798 0.744 0.829 0.789Brand love of wine 0.798 1.000 0.685 0.806 0.737Loyalty 0.744 0.685 1.000 0.726 0.732Satisfaction 0.829 0.806 0.726 1.000 0.778Word-of-mouth 0.789 0.737 0.732 0.778 1.000

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e IS

CT

E]

at 0

3:40

27

Nov

embe

r 20

12

TA

BLE

4St

ruct

ura

lRes

ults

and

Multi

-gro

up

Anal

ysis

.

Stru

ctura

lpat

hs

βH

igh

exper

tise

group

βLo

wex

per

tise

group

Stan

dar

der

ror

Hig

hSt

andar

der

ror

Low

Sp1

βH

igh–β

Low

t-te

st

Satis

fact

ion

->B

rand

love

of

win

e

0.68

2∗∗∗

0.66

6∗∗∗

0.07

50.

092

3.37

10.

016

0.04

0ns

Bra

nd

imag

e->

Bra

nd

love

of

win

e

0.21

4∗∗0.

210∗

0.07

40.

091

3.35

50.

005

0.01

2ns

Bra

nd

love

of

win

e->

Word

-of-m

outh

0.68

3∗∗∗

0.76

0∗∗∗

0.07

20.

054

2.95

6−0

.066

−0.1

87ns

Bra

nd

love

of

win

e->

Loya

lty0.

709∗∗

∗0.

620∗∗

∗0.

050

0.07

62.

900

0.08

90.

255

ns

R2

Bra

nd

love

ofw

ine

75.0

%71

.1%

R2

Word

-of-m

outh

46.7

%56

.2%

R2 Lo

yalty

50.2

%38

.4%

GoF

0.7

0.6

Not

e.U

nbia

sed

estim

ator

ofav

erag

eer

ror

stan

dar

dva

rian

ce.

∗ p<

0.05

;∗∗

p<

0.01

;∗∗

∗ p<

0.00

1;N

S:notsi

gnifi

cant.

338

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e IS

CT

E]

at 0

3:40

27

Nov

embe

r 20

12

Explaining Love of Wine Brands 339

of manifest variables extracted by constructs (AVE) was at least 0.5; this in-dicates that more variance was explained—rather than unexplained—in thevariables associated with a given construct.

Finally, to assess discriminant validity, the square root of AVE shouldbe greater than the correlation between the construct and other constructsin the model (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Table 3 shows that this criterion hasbeen met.

The full structural results are presented in Figure 2. In this study, a non-parametric approach called Bootstrapping was used to assess the precisionof the PLS estimates and support of the hypotheses. All path coefficients werefound to be significant at the 0.001 or 0.01 levels. Consequently, the first fourhypotheses were supported. In addition, all the signs were in the expecteddirection. The Q2 statistic is used to evaluate the predictive relevance of themodel. Since all Q2 are positive in the model, the relations in the modelhave predictive relevance. The model also demonstrates predictive power(R2) since the modeled constructs explained 77.0% of the variance in brandlove of wine and 46.9% of the variance in loyalty (Figure 2).

Then, the sample was divided into two groups, the high experiencegroup (n = 141) and the low experience group (n = 135). The measure-ment results for each of two sub-samples reveal reliability of the individualmeasures, as well as, the convergent validity and the discriminant validity ofthe constructs. The structural results and the multi-group analysis are pre-sented in Table 4. In order to compare the two groups (high expertise groupand low expertise group), we used the procedures described by Chin et al.(2003) and Chin (2010). The t-test results suggest that there are no significantdifferences (critical t-value = |1.960|) in the causal order relationships. Asa result, the fifth hypothesis is not supported.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Ancestrally, wine has been identified with love and associated with severalromantic songs. This study innovatively brings to the context of wine theconstruct of brand love proposed by Carroll and Ahuvia (2006).

The results support the first four hypotheses but not the fifth. Summariz-ing, wine consumers satisfied with their preferred wine brand and consciousof a good brand image are more likely to develop strong feelings of love forthe wine. This strong feeling means to be attached, passionate, feel good,and regard the wine brand as wonderful and pure delight. Therefore, to behappy with the wine chosen and satisfied with the wine features influencethe necessary involvement that leads to love.

Another important point is the image of the wine created in the con-sumer’s mind. An image of attractiveness, trustworthiness, and likeabilitycan help to create the passion for a wine label. Hence, the consumer shouldnot be misled and a positioning created that matches the flavor and other

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e IS

CT

E]

at 0

3:40

27

Nov

embe

r 20

12

340 S. M. Correia Loureiro and H. R. Kaufmann

organoleptic features to the lifestyle, and inner and social self of the con-sumer. The package and other symbolic representations of the wine brandshould also be adjusted to the wine and the target consumer.

Brand love is a good predictor of recommendation and loyalty in thewine sector. Those who have a passion for a particular wine are the first tobuy it again and suggest it to others to buy.

The higher the level of expertise does not improve significantly theeffect of customer’ satisfaction and brand image on brand love of wine, aswell as, does not lead to a greater loyalty or to encourage or recommendother people to buy the wine brand. Customers with more knowledge andexperience on wine are not significantly more likely to develop feelings oflove than others less knowledgeable. As a result, it is possible to involveconsumers in order to generate wine lovers, even if they are not experts.Thus, it could be concluded that the level of expertise cannot be regardedas a moderator. A reason for such findings can lie in the fact that brand loveof wine is about emotions, passion, being very much attached to a wine,and regarding the wine and its brand as a pure delight (Carroll & Ahuvia,2006). Delight is considered as a second order emotion that comprises joyand surprise (Plutchik, 1980; Westbrook & Oliver, 1991): two very positiveemotions. In this line of thoughts, to generate a love for a wine and its brandemotional bonds between the wine and the consumer seem to be moreimportant than the rational knowledge.

From a managerial perspective, a good consumption experience shouldbe provided as a stimulus in order to cause arousal and pleasure, which, inturn, can lead to delight (Oliver, Rust, & Varki, 1997; Loureiro, 2010a) andeventually to a passion and love. This state of love could be achieved bya personal (inner) and social identification with the wine characteristics, apositive attitude and satisfaction, and could be facilitated by encoding thewine attributes, benefits, and favorable brand associations in the consumers’mind (Keller, 1993): a positive brand image.

Therefore, a good wine consumption experience could be associatedwith the attributes related to the wine characteristics (chemicals compo-nents due to soil, climate and wine preparation), attributes not related tothe wine characteristics (such as: fair price perceived by consumers, bot-tle, logotype, package, the way the wine is communicated and related ornot with groups of people, festivals, celebrations) and benefits perceived byconsumers. As to concerning the benefits, the wine has a functional benefitrelated to one of our basic need, drink, but we can also found experi-mental (such as: taste smell, and consistency) and symbolic benefits (socialapproval or personal expression and outer-directed self-esteem). Moreover,the wine should have strong flavors, specific of each region that allow con-sumers to identify themselves with the wine, the region and the historyand place related to the Portuguese wines in a unique and differentiatedway.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e IS

CT

E]

at 0

3:40

27

Nov

embe

r 20

12

Explaining Love of Wine Brands 341

All the aforementioned considerations can bring cues in order to de-velop events and prepare good experiences with wine that lead to establishfavorable associations (wine brand and consumers) encoded in consumers’mind which, in turn, can develop strong bonds and feelings of pleasure anddelight and even passion and love.

As a suggestion for further research, which allows us to overcomelimitations of this study, it should be interesting to investigate potentialother antecedents and outcomes of brand love of wine. For example, vari-ables such as brand affordability, social pressure, and brand personalityshould be taken in consideration. In addition, consumers should be seg-mented according to different types of passion for the wine and its differentfeatures.

REFERENCES

Ahuvia, A. C. (1993). I love it! Toward a unifying theory of love across diverse loveobjects (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Northwestern University, Evanston,IL.

Ahuvia, A. C. (2005a). Beyond the extended self: Loved objects and consumers iden-tity narratives. Journal of Consumer Research, 32, 171–184. doi: 10.1086/429607

Ahuvia, A. C. (2005b). The love prototype revisited: A qualitative exploration of con-temporary folk psychology. (Working paper) Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan DearbornUniversity.

Aurier, P., & Ngobo, P. V. (1999). Assessment of consumer knowledge and itsconsequences: A multi-component approach. Advances in Consumer Research,26, 569–575.

Batra, R., Ahuvia, A. C., & Bagozzi, R. (2008). Brand love: Its nature and conse-quences. (Working paper). Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Dearborn University.

Bloch, P., Ridgway, N., & Sherrell, D. (1989). Extending the concept of shopping:An investigation of browsing activity. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science,17(1), 13–21. doi:10.1177/009207038901700102

Brakus, J. J., Schmitt, B. H., & Zarantonello, L. (2009). Brand experience: What is it?How is it measured? Does it affect loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 73(3), 52–68.doi:10.1509/jmkg.73.3.52

Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185–216. doi:10.1177/135910457000100301

Bruwer J., & Wood G. (2005). The Australian online wine-buying consumer: Motiva-tional and behavioural perspectives. Journal of Wine Research, 16(3), 193–211.doi:10.1080/09571260600556666

Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. A. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment. London,UK: Sage.

Carroll, B. A., & Ahuvia, A. (2006). Some antecedents and outcomes of brand love.Marketing Letters, 17(2), 79–89. doi:10.1007/s11002–006-4219-2

Chaudhuri, A., & Holbrook M. B. (2001). The chain of effects from brand trustand brand affect to brand performance: The role of brand loyalty. Journal ofMarketing, 65 (2), 81–93. doi:10.1509/jmkg.65.2.81.18255

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e IS

CT

E]

at 0

3:40

27

Nov

embe

r 20

12

342 S. M. Correia Loureiro and H. R. Kaufmann

Chin, W. W. (2010). Frequently asked questions—partial least squares and PLS-graph,2000. Retrieved from http://disc-nt.cba.uh.edu/chin/plsfaq/plsfaq.htm

Chin, W. W., Marcolin, B. L., & Newsted, P. R. (2003). A partial least squares latentvariable modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: Results from aMonte Carlo simulation study and an electronic mail adoption study. Informa-tion Systems Research, 14(2), 189–217. doi:10.1287/isre.14.2.189.16018

Corbu, N. (2009). Brand image. A cross-cultural perspective. Journal of Media Re-search, 5, 72–88.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural models with unobservablesvariables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 28, 39–50.

Fournier, S. M. (1998). Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship the-ory in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 343–373.doi:10.1086/209515

Fournier, S., & Mick, D. G. (1999). Rediscovering satisfaction. Journal of Marketing,63, 5–23.

Giese, J. L., & Cote, J. A. (2000). Defining consumer satisfaction. Academy of Mar-keting Science Review, 1, 1–22.

Guo, L., & Meng, X. (2008). Consumer knowledge and its consequences: An interna-tional comparison. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 32(3), 260–268.doi: 10.1111/j.1470–6431.2008.00677.x

Hulland, J. (1999). Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic managementresearch: A review of four recent studies. Strategic Management Journal,20, 195–204. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199902)20:2<195::AID-SMJ13>3.0.CO;2-7

Kamat, V., & Parulekar, A. A. (2007). Brand love—The precursor to loyalty. In J.R. Priester, D. J. MacInnis, & C. W. Park (Eds.), Proceedings of advertising andconsumer psychology 2007 (pp. 94–98). Santa Monica, CA: Society for ConsumerPsychology.

Keh, H. T., Pang, J., & Peng, S. (2007). Understanding and measuring brand love. InJ. R. Priester, D. J. MacInnis, & C. W. Park (Eds.), Proceedings of advertising andconsumer psychology 2007 (pp. 84–88). Santa Monica, CA: Society for ConsumerPsychology.

Keller, K. L. (1993, January). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57, 1–22.

Johnson, M. D., Gustafsson, A., Andreassen, T. W., Lervik, L., & Cha, J. (2001). Theevolution and future of national customer satisfaction index models. Journal ofEconomics Psychology, 22(2), 217–245. doi:10.1016/S0167-4870(01)00030-7

Lockshin L., Mueller, S., Louviere, J., Francis, L., & Osidacz, P. (2009). Developmentof a new method to measure how consumers choose wine. Wine IndustryJournal, 24(2), 37–42.

Lohmoller, J. B. (1988). The PLS program system: Latent variables path analysiswith partial least squares estimation. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 23(1),125–127. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr2301_7

Loureiro, S. (2010a). Satisfying and delighting the rural tourists. Journal of Traveland Tourism Marketing, 27(4), 396–408. doi:10.1080/10548408.2010.481580

Loureiro, S. (2010b). Brand love as a driver of strengthening the relationship andthe trust with the brand: An empirical study on car sector. In E. Y. Kim (Ed.),Proceedings of 2010 Global Marketing Conference—Marketing in a turbulent

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e IS

CT

E]

at 0

3:40

27

Nov

embe

r 20

12

Explaining Love of Wine Brands 343

environment (pp. 362–373). Seoul, Republic of Korea: Chungbuk National Uni-versity.

Muthukrishnan, A. V., & Weitz, B. A. (1991). Role of product knowledge in evaluationof brand extension. Advances in Consumer Research, 18, 407–413.

Murray, K. (1985). Risk perception and information source use for products differingin service attributes (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Arizona State Univer-sity, Tempe, AZ.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Odin, Y., Odin, N., & Valette-Florence, P. (2001). Conceptual and operational aspects

of brand loyalty: An empirical investigation. Journal of Business Research, 53(2),75–84. doi: 10.1016/S0148–2963(99)00076-4

Oliver, R. L. (1980, November). A cognitive model of antecedents and consequencesof satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 460–469.

Oliver, R. L. (1977). Effect of expectation and disconfirmation on post-exposure pro-duct evaluations: An alternative interpretation. Journal of Applied Psychology,62, 480–486. doi:10.1037/0021–9010.62.4.480.

Oliver, R. L. (1999). Whence consumer loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 63,33–44. Retrieved from http://www.uta.edu/faculty/richarme/MARK%205342/Articles/Oliver%201999.pdf

Oliver, R. L., Rust, R. T., & Varki, S. (1997). Customer delight: Founda-tions, findings and managerial insight. Journal of Retailing, 73(3), 311–336.doi:10.1016/S0022–4359(97)90021-X

Plutchik, R. (1980). Emotions: A psychoevolutionary synthesis. New York, NY: Harper& Row.

Rust, R., & Oliver, R. L. (1994). Service quality: New directions in theory and practice.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sekaran, U. (1983). Methodological and theoretical issues and advancements incross-cultural research. Journal of International Business Studies, 14(2), 61–73.doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490519

Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychologist Review, 93(2),119–135.

Strongman, K. T. (1996). The psychology of emotion: Theories of emotion in perspective(4th ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Thomson, M., MacInnis, D. J., & Park, C. W. (2005). The ties that bind: Measuring thestrength of consumers’ emotional attachment to brands. Journal of ConsumerPsychology, 15(1), 77–91. doi:10.1207/s15327663jcp1501_10

Westbrook, R. A., & Oliver, R. L. (1991, June). The dimensionality of consumptionemotion patterns and consumer satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Research, 18,84–91. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2489487

Woisetschlager, D. M. (2007). Team-sponsorship in the Formula One—Does it af-fect brand perception? An empirical assessment in the German car market. InG. Fitzsimons & V. Morwitz (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 34,pp. 616–623). Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research.

Woisetschlager, D. M., Hartleb, V., & Blut, M. (2008). How to make brand commu-nities work: antecedents and consequences of consumer participation. Journalof Relationship Marketing, 7(3), 237–256. doi:10.1080/15332660802409605

Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioral consequencesof service quality. Journal of Marketing, 60(2), 31–46.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e IS

CT

E]

at 0

3:40

27

Nov

embe

r 20

12