Brands, love and family

Pramod P. Iyer, Audhesh K. Paswan and Arezoo Davari

Department of Marketing and Logistics, College of Business, University of North Texas, Denton, Texas, USA

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to explore the extent to which love cues are used by brands targeted at multiple decision-makers in a family,
specifically the mother and child.
Design/methodology/approach – First, secondary database (SmartyPants, 2013) is used to identify clusters of brands with similar benefit groups
(i.e. health and nutrition food, indulgence food, entertainment and technology for entertainment and learning) that are most loved by mothers and/or
children. Next, a content analysis of the ads for brands in these clusters is used to identify the common positioning cues across these clusters. The
data from the content analysis are used to explore the extent to which love cues (along with functional and hedonic) are used by these brands loved
by mothers and children.
Findings – The results of this study indicate that functional cues dominate the ads for the brands in functional product categories, as well as hedonic
product categories. Love cues dominate the ads for functional brands preferred by only either moms or kids, whereas for hedonic brands, love cues
dominate the ads targeted at both moms and kids.
Research limitations/implications – The authors hope that this study provides an impetus for more empirical work toward understanding the role
of love in positioning brands aimed at multiple family members.
Practical implications – Love, the underlying thread that connects a family, can be used by brand managers to appeal to multiple family members.
Social implications – Families are fundamental to the society. The authors hope that this study helps marketers appreciate that and do a better
job of marketing to the families, as families also form the fundamental units of purchase and consumption.
Originality/value – This study uses value congruency framework to look at the notion of love as a positioning theme for brands targeted at multiple
decision-makers. Hence, the study contributes to the development of family decision-making behavior.
Keywords Family, Brand, Children, Mothers, Love
Paper type Research paper

Introduction Sosanie (1977); Sheth (1974) and Spiro (1983), very few
researchers have explored the finer nuances of family
Literature on brand and branding suggests that brands mean
decision-making. More recently, Commuri and Gentry
different things to and serve different functions for different
(2000) urge more research attention toward family as a
people (Keller and Lehmann, 2006). Firms rely extensively on
decision-making unit. To get a better understanding of
brand management processes and spend a lot of resources to
decision-making by multiple stakeholders, we rely on the
position their brands correctly in the minds of target
business-to-business purchasing literature, especially from the
consumers to gain customer loyalty. However, consistent with
relationship perspective (Morgan and Hunt, 1994; Sheth and
literature on brand community (Brakus et al., 2009; Cova and
Parvatiyar, 1995; Webster and Wind, 1972). These studies
Pace, 2006; Fournier and Lee, 2009; Muniz and O’guinn,
suggest that business purchase decisions are complex and are
2001), we argue that brand loyalty is also influenced by the
built on higher-order abstract bonds. We argue that family
interactions among brand and multiple stakeholders of the
decision-making is also complex, sometimes a drawn-out
brand decision-making unit. This is especially pertinent when
process, and is bound together by higher-order abstract
these stakeholders are part of pre-existing decision-making
bonds. Hence, marketers must address the concerns of various
unit such as a family. This study focuses on mother and child,
individuals involved in the decision-making process, not just
as two members of a family decision-making unit, and
individually but also collectively. Using a common bond (i.e.
explores the extent to which brand positioning themes used by
the feeling of love within family members) that binds various
brands aimed at mother and/or child include love, hedonic
family members together and links family members and
(including fun) and functional benefits.
brands can be the key to brand success.
We focus on family as a decision-making unit because
Existing literature on consumer– brand relationship has
family is a fundamental buying and consumption unit.
used terms such as brand sensitivity, brand attachment, brand
However, apart from few exceptions such as Szybillo and
commitment, brand trust, brand loyalty and, more recently,
brand love (Albert et al., 2008; Batra et al., 2012; Carroll and
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Ahuvia, 2006; Fetscherin et al., 2014; Keller and Lehmann,
Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/1061-0421.htm 2006; Hwang and Kandampully, 2012; Sarkar and Sreejesh,
2014; Wallace et al., 2014). These studies suggest that
consumers develop a strong emotional attachment with
brands and may even have a feeling, akin to love, toward
Journal of Product & Brand Management brands. However, most have looked at the notion of brand
25/1 (2016) 69 –83
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 1061-0421]
love as a dyadic relationship – one consumer and one brand.
[DOI 10.1108/JPBM-08-2014-0695] In this study, we focus on multiple family members and

69
 Brands, love and family Journal of Product & Brand Management
Pramod P. Iyer, Audhesh K. Paswan and Arezoo Davari Volume 25 · Number 1 · 2016 · 69 –83

explore how brands connect with these multiple stakeholders? example, parents might agree to go to Disneyland with their
One possible answer may lie in the feeling of love – the kids even though they themselves may get limited apparent
common bond between family members. This study benefits (apart from their children’s happiness). While
specifically explores if more “love” themes are used for purchase decisions by parents are complex enough (Burns,
positioning by brands targeted at multiple family members 1992; Davis, 1971), the introduction of kids adds a new
than an individual family member. dimension to this complexity. In 2000-2001, the direct
Importance of this study is also highlighted by a influence of kids under 12 years of age on the spending of
contemporary environment where brands targeted at different families was estimated to be around $200-$300bn (McDonald
family members, especially children, are coming under and Lavelle, 2001). This number had reached $1.2 trillion in
scrutiny from various social groups consisting of concerned 2012 (Goodwin, 2013). To segment and target kids,
parents and even perhaps regulatory groups. For example, marketers have used demographic variables (Preston and
Nestle’s Wonder Ball, a small toy inside a chocolate pack, White, 2004), lifestyle factors, benefits sought (i.e. long
became an instant hit with the children. However, the safety lasting) and heavy versus light product usage (McNeal, 1999).
issues and choking hazard ultimately led to public outcry and Literature also suggests that children influence brand choices
failure of the brand. Thus, addressing the concerns of multiple directly and indirectly, and the range of product categories
stakeholders, especially in the case of brands targeted at with significant kid influence has also expanded (McDonald
children, is pivotal to success. It is important for managers to and Lavelle, 2001) to include not just breakfast cereals and
understand the interactions among different family members toys anymore, but categories such as technology and healthy
involved in a purchase decision and how their brand offer food as well.
meets the common bases of these interactions. Relying on these evidence, and drawing on Sheth’s (1974)
In this study, we focus on brands that are aimed at one or theory of family purchase behavior and value congruence, we
more family members using different positioning themes present a framework for categorizing various purchase
including love. Further, we focus on two decision-makers in a decision-making within a family context. We argue that the
family – mother and child – and explore the brand positioning decisions made within a family can be categorized into seven
themes used by different brands targeted at mothers and/or domains. The first three include the decisions made
children. We focus on brands aimed at mothers and children individually by three different members – father; mother; and
because the key bond between mothers and children is love, kids. The remaining four include the decisions made by some
that is suggested to be pure and unconditional (Strathearn combination of the three main family members. These
et al., 2008). It includes all kinds of sacrifices, compassion, decision-making domains and possible product examples
caring, sharing and friendship. We argue that these elements include father and child (e.g. sports equipment); mother and
of love also reflect in the brands they choose. In other words, child (e.g. apparel, food, entertainment, etc.); mother and
we examine the use of love themes in brand communication father (e.g. the early school choice and house); and all
when brands are targeted at multiple family members as members (father, mother and children) of the family (e.g.
against a single family member. The focal brands in this study car, upholstery, etc.). Figure 1 presents these seven
include a variety of consumer packaged goods such as decision-making domains and possible examples.
beverages, dairy products and candies, along with technology These seven domains have also been identified by other
and entertainment. We next present a review of the literature researchers. Selected examples of studies focusing on one or
revolving around family as a decision-making unit, love as more of this seven decision-making domains include – father
brand positioning theme and value congruence. This is alone (Cunningham and Green, 1974); mother alone
followed by the hypothesized relationships between three (Foxman and Tansuhaj, 1988; Green and Cunningham,
positioning themes (functional, hedonic and love), focal target 1975; Joag et al., 1991; Madill-Marshall et al., 1995); kids
(single or multiple family members) and the type of products. alone (Atkin, 1978; Berey and Pollay, 1968; Hamilton and
Catterall, 2006; Mangleburg, 1990; Rose et al., 2002; Shoham
Literature review and Dalakas, 2005); father and kids (Beatty and Talpade,
Family as a buying unit 1994; Lee and Beatty, 2002); mother and kids (Brody et al.,
Families often make decisions as a buying center, where 1981; Mehrotra and Torges, 1977; Moore-Shay and
children, parents and other family members exert forces on the Lutz, 1988); mother and father (Blood and Wolfe, 1960;
decision-making process. However, not all decision-making Davis, 1971; Ferber and Lee, 1974; Filiatrault and Ritchie,
may involve all family members to the same extent. Family 1980; Kim and Lee, 1996; Kirchler, 1990); and, finally,
decisions can be dyadic, triadic or a contagion based on the mother, father and kids (Belch et al., 1985; Burns and
number of family members and purchase type. In the USA, an Granbois, 1980; Corfman and Lehmann, 1987; Foxman et al.,
average family consists of two partners and a child (Census, 1989b; Labrecque and Ricard, 2001; Lackman and Lanasa,
2013) – making the family decision-making unit broadly 1993; Labrecque and Ricard, 2001; Rose et al., 2002; Shoham
triadic (Epp and Price, 2008). We argue that these three and Dalakas, 2005; Tansuhaj et al., 1995). While these
entities, either individually or jointly, influence brand investigations have certainly added to our knowledge about
decisions, and a dominant factor influencing these decisions is decision-making by family members and the determinants of
“love”. For example, a mom purchasing candies for her these decisions, including the feeling of love, they have looked
children may be strongly influenced by her feeling of love at this phenomenon from the decision-makers’ perspective.
toward the children, even after knowing that too much sugar This study looks at this phenomenon from a marketer’s
can be harmful for the child in the long run. In another perspective and tries to explore if marketers use different

70
 Brands, love and family Journal of Product & Brand Management
Pramod P. Iyer, Audhesh K. Paswan and Arezoo Davari Volume 25 · Number 1 · 2016 · 69 –83

Figure 1 Confluence of decision-making in a family Belch et al., 1985; Kumpel Norgaard et al., 2007; Lee and
Beatty, 2002). Sheth (1974) also specifies that different family
Decisions made jointly by Decisions made jointly by members (including children) exert varying levels of influence
mother and father such as mother, father, and kids
choosing a school or such as buying a car. E.g.
Coca Cola Life and Toyota
based on the product category. Children often target parents
preschool for kids. E.g.
Richmond Montessori Sienna. based on parents’ accessibility and the type of request (Nash,
School.
2009). Some of the influencing tactics used by kids include
bargaining, evoking guilt, pleading, sulking, etc. Further,
children’s “pestering” is considered to be one of the most
Father powerful influencers in purchase decisions (McNeal, 1992;
Mother
Gunter and Furnham, 1998; Nicholls and Cullen, 2004).
Brand decisions
Brand decisions More recently, Bruni (2013) suggests that purchases for
made by mother
made by father alone such as children are getting more sophisticated and a higher degree of
alone such as Life nutrition choices.
Insurance. E.g. E.g. Campbell attention is being paid to children’s influence on family
Aviva Life Soups and
Insurance and Tropicana. decision-making. Children in the USA are almost exposed to
Annuities and 25,000 to 40,000 commercial per year (Shah, 2010). For
Range Rover.
example, fast food industries spend almost $700m dollars
annually to advertise to children (Becker, 2015). Marketers
are willing to spend these amounts because there is a strong
influence of children on family purchases (Goodwin, 2013).
Brand decisions made
by kids alone such as The direct influence of children on family expenses was
buying gaming around $1.2 trillion in 2012 (Goodwin, 2013). Needless to say
consoles. E.g. Sony
Decisions made jointly
PlayStation and Xbox. that the level of children’s influence will differ based on factors
by father and kids such Decisions made jointly
as buying male by mother and kids such as product categories, parental employment status and
accessories for kids. Kids such as buying apparel gender (Beatty and Talpade, 1994). Motivational aspects are
E.g. Patek Phillippe and for kids. E.g. Crayola
Kellogg’s Frosties. and Chips Ahoy. seen to have the strongest influence on a child’s perceived
influence on family decision-making (Beatty and Talpade,
1994). For example, the level of children’s influence in
positioning themes for their brands, including love, when
purchase decisions for hedonic and fun product categories is
targeting different decision-makers in a family.
likely to be higher as compared to the influence in purchase
In this study, we focus on the brand choices made by
decisions for functional products.
mothers and children, either individually or jointly. Examples
Family decision-making has also been compared with
of purchases made by moms and kids, either individually or
industrial decision-making (Sheth, 1974, Spiro, 1983). While
jointly, may be functional (e.g. breakfast cereals) and/or
there are some differences (Cova and Salle, 2008; Fern and
hedonic (e.g. treats) products (Bhat and Reddy, 1998;
Brown, 1984), there are similarities that include multiple
Hirschman and Holbrook, 1982; Holbrook and
decision-makers involved in a purchase decision, complex and
O’Shaughnessy, 1984). Further, these purchases may be
drawn-out purchase process, different power distribution
traditional (e.g. food, clothing and education-related
among members, conflict management between various
products) or technology-oriented products (e.g. video games,
stakeholders and the concept of distributive justice (Sheth,
Disneyland vacations, etc.).
1974). To start with, family members differ from one another
in terms of life stage, knowledge levels, personality types and
Love as a purchase motivator in a family
time orientation which they bring to bear on their purchase
Sheth (1974) suggests that buying motives and evaluative
decision (Commuri and Gentry, 2000; Sheth, 1974) for
beliefs play important roles in determining the extent of
people they love and care for. In a family context, the earning
influence exerted by different family members. More
adults may be seen as the ones holding greatest power and are
specifically, individual predispositions, personality, role
often influenced by other family members because of their
orientation, life style and bonds between family members
feelings toward them. Most of us can relate to being
among others influence purchase decisions. Further, the
approached by a little angelic face and giving in to their
family decision-making dynamics will also depend on the
demands. Something else takes over. While this is not power
product and service category. The propensity of joint family
in a traditional sense, this perspective of power is consistent
decision-making increases with the importance and
with the notion of influence introduced by French and Raven
involvement in product categories. For example, products that
(1959). Children have an inordinate influence over their
have high importance to the entire family (such as buying a
parents, who very often, may not be always, make purchases
new car) will be influenced by more family members (Sheth,
that are driven by their feelings for their kids (Sheth, 1974;
1974). Literature on family as a buying unit has also looked at
Spiro, 1983, Beatty and Talpade, 1994). Whitebeck and
different aspects of family decision-making, such as family life
Gecas (1988) suggest that this feeling is often anchored in
cycle (Wagner and Hanna, 1983), family decision-maker
love, caring and affection for other family members.
(Davis, 1976; Sheth, 1974) and relative influence of
husbands, wives and children (Belch and Willis, 2002;
Foxman et al., 1989b; Palan and Wilkes, 1997; Spiro, 1983). Value congruency and family decision-making
Children as influential decision-makers have received ample To theoretically anchor our investigation, we rely on the
attention in existing literature (Beatty and Talpade, 1994; notion of value congruency (Boxx et al., 1991; Edwards and

71
 Brands, love and family Journal of Product & Brand Management
Pramod P. Iyer, Audhesh K. Paswan and Arezoo Davari Volume 25 · Number 1 · 2016 · 69 –83

Cable, 2009; Zhang and Bloemer, 2008). Value congruency is other words, for functional brands to be liked by family
suggested to influence consumer– brand relationship and is members, they must be positioned using strong functional
associated with quality perception, satisfaction, trust, affective themes, and for hedonic brands, the hedonic themes must be
commitment and loyalty (Zhang and Bloemer, 2008). dominant:
According to Sirgy et al. (2000), self-brand congruity
determines retail patronage. Kressmann et al. (2006) find that H1. Functional brands liked by family members are more
self-brand image congruence positively affects brand loyalty likely to use functional themes in their advertising.
directly and indirectly. McCracken (1988) alluded to this idea
H2. Hedonic brands liked by family members are more
in his conceptualization of Diderot effect, which suggests the
likely to use hedonic themes in their advertising.
presence of a common theme in everything we own. In
accordance with the literature, we argue that a brand will be However, when brands are targeted at multiple family
loved by both mothers and kids, only when they perceive the members simultaneously, marketers may have to consider the
brand to reflect the commonality between them – that is, love. reasons behind family members buying things for one another.
In summary, we argue that the purchase decisions made by In other words, it is no longer a relationship between a brand
moms and kids, especially the ones either made together or for and an individual. It now becomes a three-way relationship
one another, will be motivated by the mutual feeling of love. among focal brand and Family Member A; focal brand and
However, for this feeling of love to become salient in purchase Family Member B; and Family Member A and Family
decision, marketers and brands must evoke this through Member B. Literature on brand positioning suggests that
positioning platform in their advertisements. brand–target consumer/s relationships are central to achieving
success in the marketplace, because these relationships
Brand positioning and family represent a deep emotional bond that consumers have with the
Firms undertake brand positioning activities to create the brand (Carroll and Ahuvia, 2006; Grisaffe and Nguyen,
desired brand identity and value proposition in the minds of 2011). These relationships capture the feelings of connection,
their target audience (Aaker and Joachimsthaler, 2000; Park affection and passion (Thomson et al., 2005), for example, the
et al., 1986). While advertising to children is widely debated feeling of love between the consumers and a brand (Carroll
(Rose et al., 2012), firms do advertise to children, because of and Ahuvia, 2006; Rauschnabel and Ahuvia, 2014).
their influence (Preston and White, 2004). Kalafatis et al. Brand positioning in a family decision-making context
(2000) define brand positioning as a deliberate, proactive and becomes complex, because same brand communication is
iterative process aimed at the creation of distinct consumer seen by multiple family members – mothers and children in
perceptions. This often involves identifying a positioning the case of this study. Existing literature suggests that children
theme and communicating it to the target audience, to develop love bonds with brands and this relationship evolves
create desired brand image. In the context of family with time (Hémar-Nicolas and Gollety, 2012). Others suggest
decision-making, this would entail appealing to more than one that children do get influenced by advertisements, but mostly
family member, using different positioning platforms based on the ones using hedonic themes (Ji, 2002; Pine and Nash,
the type of product. 2003; Rose et al., 2012; Nairn and Fine, 2008). To build
The traditional view of positioning or creating a brand relationship with children, firms also use brand characters
image is that a brand could be positioned using functional (like Tony the Tiger and Quicky the Rabbit). However, these
and/or emotional values (Bhat and Reddy, 1998; Park et al., brand relationships between brands and children are also
1986; Zambardino and Goodfellow, 2007). We would like to embedded in the broader social environment (Ji, 2002). For
acknowledge that even the most basic functional brands can example, the relationship between mother and children also
be positioned using some emotional appeal, and a strong influence brand– child relationship and brand attitude
emotionally anchored brand may have some utility (Hémar-Nicolas and Gollety, 2012; Veloutsou and Moutinho,
component. In this study, we use these terms to capture the 2009).
dominant brand image. Functional brand positioning strategy We argue that brand decision made by one member of the
assumes the consumers to be rational, that is, a brand’s family is likely to be strongly anchored in emotional ties, that
functional features and attribute become more important in is, the feeling of love between family members. An example of
their decision-making (Bhat and Reddy, 1998). Such brands this would be a father indulging his child with a new baseball
are likely to be more functional such as basic breakfast food, bat, when the child already possesses two bats. Park et al.
and the term functional brands is used for such brands in this (1991) suggest that family decisions are often driven by the
study. In contrast, emotional brand positioning strategy dimensions of love. Previous literature also finds that multiple
assumes that a consumer’s choice of brand is motivated by an positioning themes are more influential when brands’ intrinsic
overwhelming desire for intangible benefits (Holbrook and attributes are not clear (Miyazaki et al., 2005; Kirmani and
O’Shaughnessy, 1984). Chunovic (2001) uses the term Rao, 2000).
“identity brand” for such brands and argues that they often We argue that these multiple positioning themes, on the one
have a greater brand loyalty. We use the term hedonic brands hand, must contain core benefits themes – functional and
for such brands anchored in emotional positioning strategy hedonic themes, depending on the product type. In addition,
(Hirschman and Holbrook, 1982). Relying on these we argue that the brand positioning advertisements targeted at
evidences, we argue that most brands targeted at family mothers and children are also likely to contain love themes.
members are positioned as functional brands or hedonic For example, several food brands, including functional ones,
brands, and if they do it well, then they will be liked for it. In are vying to show more emotional/hedonic appeals (e.g.

72
 Brands, love and family Journal of Product & Brand Management
Pramod P. Iyer, Audhesh K. Paswan and Arezoo Davari Volume 25 · Number 1 · 2016 · 69 –83

cereals using love and caring to position their brands) in their students), with a third person, a marketing faculty,
advertisements as well (Rose et al., 2012). However, it is cross-checking the groupings.
difficult to predict the extent to which love and functional Table I presents the distribution of brands in the sample,
themes will dominate the advertising aimed at mothers and their targets – mom, kids and moms plus kids (Smarty Pants,
children. Thus, while we hypothesize that the love themes 2013) – and the product categories these brands belong to.
contained in the ads aimed at both mothers and children are Largest number of brands preferred by both moms and kids
likely to be different from the ads aimed at only one of them, fall in the food for indulgence category (e.g. KitKat), followed
we are unable to hypothesize a direction at this stage: by entertainment category (e.g. Disney). In comparison,
largest number of brands preferred by “moms only” fell in the
H3. The number of love themes for brands liked by both entertainment category (Amazon), followed by food for health
mother and children are likely to be different from the and nutrition (e.g. Subway). Finally, the largest number of
number of love themes for brands liked by only one of brands preferred by “kids alone” belonged to the food for
the family member (mother or child). indulgence (e.g. Kool-Aids) and technology for entertainment
and learning (e.g. Xbox). This distribution seems to suggest
Method that mothers are more concerned about nutrition, whereas
children are more focused on the taste and hedonic pleasures
Data for this study were obtained from the secondary database
of food, and the brands seem to tap into these dominant
published by “SmartyPants”. Smarty Pants (2013) gathers
needs. This is consistent with the literature on positioning and
and publishes a list of most loved brands by moms and kids on
children (Ji, 2002; Pine and Nash, 2003; Rose et al., 2012;
a yearly basis starting 2009. The database consists of
Nairn and Fine, 2008).
responses from a panel of 7,000 families (moms and kids)
We next examine the positioning strategies for the brands in
across the USA, encompassing all major ethnicities (65 per
each of the three decision-making clusters (moms and kids,
cent White, 20 per cent Hispanic and 15 per cent African
moms alone, kids alone) and the product clusters – food for
American) and economic classes. The panel is updated
health and nutrition (functional), food for indulgence
annually and ensures that the sample represents kids and
(hedonic), technology for entertainment/learning (functional
moms from various parts of the USA. The kids surveyed in
and hedonic) and entertainment (hedonic). For this, we
this data set range between 6 to 12 years in terms of age. Kids
content analyzed the ads for the brands in each cluster to
in this age group have been suggested to be more susceptible identify the nature and the type of positioning strategies
to advertising (Nairn and Fine, 2008; Ambler, 2008; pursued by different brands in Table I (Tresnak, 1992; Nelson
Livingstone, 2009). Smarty Pants (2013) ranks brands using a and Paek, 2007). Content analysis is primarily concerned with
proprietary “momfinity” and “kidfinity” scores. These affinity identifying the relative presence (or absence) of specific
scores capture mom’s and kid’s affinity toward brands based informational messages or themes to position various brands.
on various dimensions which include brand awareness, Advertisements – the primary medium through which firms
popularity and love. Apart from the “momfinity” and communicate their brand’s positioning strategies – were
“kidfinity” scores, the panel research also measures brand used for this purpose. Firms use words, pictures, images,
usage, frequency, context and intentions of future usage colors and other symbols in their ads to communicate the
(Smarty Pants, 2013). To ensure consumer engagement brand position, representing the desired benefits to their
(especially children), the number of brands evaluated by each consumers (Blankson and Strutton, 2011; Spears, 2003;
child is capped based on their age. In addition, all brands were Stern and Schroeder, 1994). Hence, it is appropriate to
randomized to reduce any bias due to sequencing. assess brand positioning using advertisements (Alden et al.,
Respondents are provided with brand logos and brand names 1999; Stern and Resnik, 1991; Spears, 2003). Consistent
(text) to evoke brand associations/relationships in a much with the extant literature, we analyzed the ads by focusing
deeper sense than text alone. For younger consumers, brand on images, photos, background and text in the
logos create greater recall (Hemar-Nicolas and Gollety, 2012). advertisement to holistically assess the positioning strategy
Further, Smarty Pants (2013) also identifies the reasons for of the focal brands in Table I (Fay and Currier, 1994;
kids and parents loving the brands, although it is not reported. Kennedy and McGarvey, 2008). For the print ads, we
For the purpose of this study, we consider the top 50 brands considered both full-page and half-page ads. We also
(both “momfinity” and “kidfinity”) published by Smarty analyzed the television ads using the principles outlined for
Pants (2013). These affinity scores for the year 2013 were the print ads – that is, images, photos, background and text
used to create two lists. The first (Appendix 1) contains the in the advertisement to holistically identify the positioning
brands preferred by both moms and kids, that is, these brands strategies.
show up in both mom’s and kid’s lists, using the “momfinity” Relying on the existing studies (Gkiouzepas and Hogg,
and “kidfinity” scores and the brand ranking. The second list 2011; Spears, 2003; and Blankson and Strutton, 2011), we
(Appendix 2) contains brands preferred only by moms or only used a benefit-based coding scheme consisting of functional
by kids, but not both. We next took the brands in Tables I and and hedonic (including fun) themes. In addition, we also
II and categorized them into four groups (Table I) – food included the love themes in our coding scheme to test our
for health and nutrition (functional); food for focal hypotheses. Paying heed to suggestions regarding the use
indulgence (hedonic); technology for entertainment/learning of adapted scales (Douglas and Craig, 2006; Douglas and
(functional and hedonic); and entertainment (hedonic). This Nijssen, 2003), we used the existing validated coding schemes
categorization was done by two judges (both doctoral (Spears, 2003), consisting of themes reflecting functional and

73
 Brands, love and family Journal of Product & Brand Management
Pramod P. Iyer, Audhesh K. Paswan and Arezoo Davari Volume 25 · Number 1 · 2016 · 69 –83

Table I Categorization of brands based on preferences

Technology for
entertainment/
Food for health and learning
nutrition Food for indulgence (Functional and Entertainment
Preference (Functional) (Hedonic) Hedonic) (Hedonic)
More preferred by moms Eggo Snickers Crayola
(also preferred by kids) Reese Disney Channel (just one ad)
Goldfish Disney
Twix
Chips ahoy
Starburst
Kit kat
Pringles
DQ

More preferred by kids Capri sun Kraft Mac and cheese Apple Netflix
(also preferred by moms) Hershey Wii YouTube – No ads
MandM IPod Touch ToysrUs
Lays Nickelodeon
Doritos
Oreo
Cheetos
Popsicle

Only preferred by moms Subway Cheese-it Google Amazon

Campbell Olive garden Target
Tropicana Lego
Cheerios Scholastic
Quaker Chewy ABC Family
Juicy juice Lego.com
Kellogg’s rice krispies Animal Planet
Disney.com
Monopoly
Nike
Discovery

Only preferred by kids Lunchables McDonalds IPad Cartoon Network

Skittles Nintendo DS Mario
Pop-Tarts IPod GameStop
Roll ups IPhone
Kool aid Xbox
Pizza hut Kinect
Fruit by the foot – no ads PlayStation
Ring pop ITunes
Note: Nike was categorized in the hedonic entertainment category because it is predominantly used for recreational (in the form of exercise) purposes

hedonic benefit positioning. The functional benefit themes capturing love themes – for example, compassion, care, sharing,
include terms such as safety, trust, dependability, reliability, reverence, friendship and sacrifice. Taken together, a total of 19
performance, value and price and time savings. The hedonic or benefit themes were used for content analyzing the
psychosocial benefit themes include terms such as health, advertisements for the selected brands. The objective of this
wealth, beauty, achievement, fun and leisure. Further, we study is to simply identify the positioning themes, especially
developed the list of themes associated with love based on the love, in the ads. Therefore, a single approach to asses both
extant works of love. Traditionally, most of the literature print and television commercials was used. This approach has
revolving around love focuses on the love between partners been also used in the previous literature (Blankson and
and includes dimensions such as intimacy, passion and Kalafatis, 2007).
commitment (Sternberg, 1986). However, as these do not We collected four recent print and television ads for each of
pertain to the love between a mom and a child, we relied on the brands, resulting in a total of 123 television ads and 130
studies by authors such as Singh (2009) and identified terms print ads. We content analyzed both sets of ads using the

74
 Brands, love and family Journal of Product & Brand Management
Pramod P. Iyer, Audhesh K. Paswan and Arezoo Davari Volume 25 · Number 1 · 2016 · 69 –83

Table II Positioning themes in ads ⫻ product categories ⫻ mothers and kids as targets
Food for
health and Food for Technology for
Common themes in nutrition indulgence entertainment/learning Entertainment
Preference ads (Functional) (%) (Hedonic) (%) (Functional and Hedonic) (%) (Hedonic) (%)
More preferred by moms Functional 6 55 35 36 4 13
Hedonic 5 45 33 34 8 26
Fun (part of Hedonic) 1 20 22 67 5 63
Love 0 0 28 29 19 61
Total 11 96 31

More preferred by kids Functional 6 40 40 40 33 52 13 31

Hedonic 8 53 32 32 15 23 14 33
Fun (part of Hedonic) 4 50 21 66 9 60 12 86
Love 1 7 29 29 16 25 15 36
Total 15 101 64 42

Only preferred by moms Functional 38 37 14 52 13 57 55 42

Hedonic 36 35 7 26 4 17 49 37
Fun (part of Hedonic) 7 19 2 29 4 100 23 47
Love 29 28 6 22 6 26 27 21
Total 103 27 23 131

Only preferred by kids Functional 6 35 21 29 69 59 15 32

Hedonic 6 35 34 47 26 22 16 34
Fun (part of Hedonic) 2 33 17 50 18 69 11 69
Love 5 29 17 24 22 19 16 34
Total 17 72 117 47

procedure detailed in existing literature (Kassarjian, 1977; compositions. Specifically, we are able to discern the following
Kolbe and Burnett, 1991; Tresnak, 1992), that is, assigning patterns:
points for the ads using pre-determined themes. Following 1 For brands preferred by both moms and kids but more by moms:
Nelson and Paek (2007) and Tresnak (1992), two ● In the food for health and nutrition category, there is
independent coders (graduate students) were hired and a lack of love themes (0 per cent) with dominant
trained by the co-authors to detect and code positioning functional and hedonic themes (55 and 45 per cent).
themes in the selected advertisements based on the ● In the food for indulgence category, there is a balance
above-mentioned benefit codes. In line with the concerns of functional (36 per cent), hedonic (34 per cent) and
raised about coding by independent judges (Varki et al., love (29 per cent) themes.
2000), the coders were first asked to code sample ● In the entertainment category, loves themes (61 per
advertisements in front of the co-authors. Only when the cent) dominate the positioning landscape.
co-authors were satisfied with the coders’ coding were they 2 For brands preferred by both moms and kids but more by kids:
allowed to code the remaining sample of ads. The judges were ● In the food for health and nutrition category, there is
not informed about the true nature of the study. a weak presence of love themes (7 per cent) with
Both judges coded 253 ads independently. Inter-coder dominant functional and hedonic themes (40 and 53
consistency was about 99.5 per cent (there was disagreement per cent).
on only one ad, which was removed from further ● In the food for indulgence category, while functional
consideration). While Cohen’s ⌲ is normally used for the themes (40 per cent) dominate, hedonic and love
inter-coder agreement, the chance agreement probability is themes are not too far behind (32 and 29 per cent).
generally unknown (Kolbe and Burnett, 1991). Hence, we ● In the technology for learning and entertainment
used inter-judge reliability (Kassarjian, 1977) to ensure the category, while functional themes (52 per cent)
consistency of the coding. These coded themes were next dominate, hedonic and love themes are similar (23
placed in a 3 ⫻ 4 matrix (three coding theme ⫻ four product and 25 per cent).
type) for each target family unit – loved by both moms and ● In the entertainment category, functional, hedonic
children (further divided into “more preferred by moms” and and love themes are equally present (31, 33 and 36 per
“more preferred by kids” to get a more nuanced picture of this cent).
joint preference), only moms and only kids. 3 For brands preferred only by moms:
A look at the frequency distribution in Table II suggests an ● In food for health and nutrition category, all three
interesting pattern of positioning themes used by different themes (functional, hedonic and love) are present to
brands, based on the product categories and target group the same extent (37, 35 and 28 per cent).

75
 Brands, love and family Journal of Product & Brand Management
Pramod P. Iyer, Audhesh K. Paswan and Arezoo Davari Volume 25 · Number 1 · 2016 · 69 –83

● In food for indulgence category, while functional Figure 2 (a) Functional themes across functional and hedonic
themes dominate (52 per cent), hedonic and love brands (H1); (b) hedonic themes across functional and hedonic
themes have equal presence (26 and 22 per cent). brands (H2); (c) love themes across brands preferred by both or
● In technology for entertainment and learning either moms and kids (H3)
category, functional themes dominate (57 per cent),
10
with hedonic and love themes being evenly distributed
9
(17 and 26 per cent).
8
● In entertainment category, while functional and 7
hedonic themes are slightly greater in numbers (42 6
and 37 per cent), love themes are not too low (21 per 5
cent). 4
4 For brands preferred only by kids: 3
● In food for health and nutrition category, all three Funconal Brands Hedonic Brands
themes (functional, hedonic and love) are present to Preferred by both moms and kids Preferred by only moms or kids
the same extent (35, 35 and 29 per cent).
(a)
● In food for indulgence category, while hedonic themes
dominate (47 per cent), functional and love themes 7
have equal share (29 and 24 per cent). 6
● In technology for entertainment and learning
5
category, while functional themes dominate (59 per
cent), hedonic and love themes are about even (22 and 4
19 per cent). 3
● In entertainment category, all three themes are Funconal Brands Hedonic Brands
present to the same extent (32, 34 and 34 per cent). Preferred by both moms and kids Preferred by only moms or kids
(b)
Hypotheses testing
ANOVA was used to test the proposed relationships between 4.5

the type of brands, target family members and positioning 4

themes. For testing H1, we compared the number of
functional themes used in functional brands versus hedonic 3.5
brands. Consistent with H1, the results indicate that (Table 3)
3
functional brands do have a higher number of functional
themes as compared to hedonic brands (functional brands ⫽ 2.5
7.93; hedonic brands ⫽ 4.59; p ⬍ 0.01). Further, we also
2
noticed that this trend was consistent across both types of Preferred by both moms and kids Preferred by only moms or kids
preferences, that is, “preferred by both moms and kids” and
“only preferred by moms or kids” [Figure 2(a)]. Funconal Brands Hedonic Brands
H2 was tested by comparing the means of hedonic themes (c)
across functional and hedonic brands. The results do not
provide support for this hypothesis (functional brands ⫽ 5.00;
hedonic brands ⫽ 3.98; p ⬍ 0.098). However, it is interesting that functional brands have evolved beyond merely using
to note that the number of hedonic themes for functional functional themes and, in fact, use more hedonic themes.
brands is higher than the number of hedonic themes for H3 stated that the number of love themes would differ across
hedonic brands. This is more pronounced for functional both types of preference (preferred by both moms and kids and
brands. For hedonic brands, the slope was more or less equal preferred by either moms or kids). H3 was supported indicating
to 0 [Figure 2(b)]. Keeping in mind that we selected a list of that there is a difference in the number of love themes used by
brands that are loved by moms and/or kids, the results show brands that are loved by both moms and kids as compared to the

Table III Functional and hedonic themes across functional and hedonic brands
Themes Brand type N Mean SD F-value Significance
a
Functional (H1) Functional brands 14 7.93 4.60 10.300 0.002
Hedonic brandsb 56 4.59 3.16
Total 70 5.26 3.71
Hedonic (H2)S Functional brands 14 5.00 1.80 2.808 0.098
Hedonic brands 56 3.98 2.08
Total 70 4.19 2.06
Notes: a Functional brands consist of 10 brands from food for nutrition and 4 brands from technology (Apple, Iphone, Ipad, and Google); b the rest of
the brands are grouped into hedonic brands

76
 Brands, love and family Journal of Product & Brand Management
Pramod P. Iyer, Audhesh K. Paswan and Arezoo Davari Volume 25 · Number 1 · 2016 · 69 –83

brands that are only preferred by either moms or kids (p ⬍ 0.05 family, individually, that they are worth loving. This inherently
for the interaction effect). However, a look at the slope [Figure makes sense given that functional brands need to transcend the
2(c)] suggests an interesting picture. For functional brands, love value proposition to build love.
themes are more when the preference is by either moms or kids However, we notice that when brands target both moms and
than preference by both moms and kids. On the other hand, for kids, the number of love themes used is higher, especially for
hedonic brands, love themes are more when the brand is hedonic brands. In situations where families are buying for
preferred by both moms and kids than when it is preferred by pleasure and entertainment, and the decision is driven by both
only one of them (exact opposite of the functional brands). It moms and kids, the dominant factor is love (in addition to
seems that functional brands use more love themes when they are functional and hedonic reasons). Brands have to connect with
targeting individual decision-makers (moms or kids), whereas these feelings of mutual love.
hedonic brands use more love themes when they are targeting Several brands that are preferred solely by moms fall in the
multiple decision-makers simultaneously (both moms and kids). category of food for health and nutrition and entertainment.
The results are presented in Table IV. While there is a dominance of functional themes, others themes
are also not too far behind and cannot be ignored. It is interesting
Discussion to note that the fun themes are comparatively less in this
category, indicating that moms are not looking for light moments
The results of this exploratory study provide some evidence to when it comes to brands choices for themselves.
our premise that love is an important dimension to consider, Finally, the majority of brands loved only by kids tend to fall
when targeting family members. Over the years, we have seen into food for indulgence and technology and entertainment
family buying literature evolve into a rich repository of categories. In the food for indulgence category, there is a high
knowledge; yet love as a dimension in family purchase behavior level of hedonic themes (majority themes being fun), whereas for
has been overlooked. Using value congruency framework, we the hedonic technology category, we notice that functional
argue that love is an underlying value that links different family themes far outweigh the hedonic and love themes. Again, fun is
members and, hence, should be considered by brands aimed at the main component of the hedonic themes, and the dominant
multiple family members – moms and kids in this case. love themes are caring and sharing. It is always fun as a child to
In terms of sample brands distribution, most of the brands in share with close ones, especially to show-off having a technology
this study that are preferred by both moms and kids fell into food product. Also, as most of these purchases are high-ticket
for indulgence (hedonic) category, followed by entertainment purchases, brands need to convince parents that these products
(hedonic) category. Most of the brands preferred by only moms are worth buying. What would make a kid happier than his/her
fell into food for health and nutrition (functional) category and mom/dad gifting a brand new gaming console on his/her
entertainment (hedonic) category, whereas most of the brands birthday? This is perhaps the reason for caring to be the most
preferred by only kids fell into food for indulgence (hedonic) prominent love theme, even if the love themes themselves are
category and technology for entertainment and learning lower than other appeals.
(functional and hedonic) category.
Regarding positioning themes, while functional themes are
stronger for functional brands, hedonic themes are also stronger Contribution and theoretical implications
for functional brands. When it comes to love themes, they Although families as buying units have been acknowledged in
become stronger for functional brands (food for nutrition and the literature, few so far have actually looked into the
functional technology) as compared to hedonic brands (food for categories where more than one party in the family buying unit
indulgence, hedonic technology and entertainment), especially are involved in the decision-making. This study aims to
when the brands are targeted at only one of them (either moms address this gap by investigating the relationship between
or kids). This can be explained by the attempts of functional product type, target family members (some combination of
brands to go beyond the functional value proposition. For mothers and children) and the brand positioning themes
example, Minute Maid orange juice in the USA has successfully present in advertising aimed at mothers and/or children.
used the “love proposition” through portraying parenthood to Borrowing from value congruency literature, this
promote sales of its products. Therefore, to “gain the love”, exploratory study provides a new perspective on family
functional brands need to convince all decision-makers in the decision-making. The value congruency framework provides

Table IV Love themes across brands preferred by both or only one of moms and kids
Preference (H3) Category N Mean SD F-value Significance
Preferred by both moms and kids Functional brands 3 2.33 3.21 4.326 0.041
Hedonic brands 26 3.89 2.23
Total 29 3.72 2.33
Only preferred by either moms or kids Functional brands 11 4.36 2.38
Hedonic brands 30 2.67 2.06
Total 41 3.12 2.25
Total Functional brands 14 3.93 2.59
Hedonic brands 56 3.23 2.21
Total 70 3.37 2.29

77
 Brands, love and family Journal of Product & Brand Management
Pramod P. Iyer, Audhesh K. Paswan and Arezoo Davari Volume 25 · Number 1 · 2016 · 69 –83

alternative means to integrate the concepts of positioning ability to provide greater insight into family decision-making
and differentiating brands targeted at multiple family and the impact of various positioning themes and themes.
decision-makers. Thus, the current research expands the Further, the authors used only one approach to assess both
extant perspectives on determining an effective positioning print and television commercials. Future studies should look
strategy for multiple family members. at replicating the study using different methods for evaluating
Another theoretical contribution of this study is in the area of commercials from different media.
marketing strategy as a whole. With the evolution of the Despite these limitations, the current study offers a flexible
service-dominant logic (Vargo and Lusch, 2004, 2008), we can framework for looking at family purchasing decisions.
see that the value is determined by consumers. This study posits Specifically, the current study provides a framework within
that the value is determined by multiple members within a family. which the family purchase decisions can be categorized, and a
From a relationship marketing perspective, brands that cater to company’s positioning and branding decisions can be decided
families have a multi-tiered relationship (Figure 1). using the value congruency framework. We hope that this paper
contributes to the ever-growing field of family buying behavior
Managerial implications and that future studies should empirically test some of the ideas
The findings of this study, although exploratory in nature, suggested in this study. Future researchers should develop a scale
have implications for positioning and marketing strategy as to measure the relative motivational determinants of purchase
a whole. To start with, this study has important positioning (e.g. hedonic, functional and love), their overlap across different
and advertising implications. Specifically, it answers some family members and their effect on purchase decisions.
important questions such as – To whom should the Another area of future research would be to test the extent of
advertising and positioning be targeted at? Can an influence exerted by kids and moms in a purchase where both
advertising appeal be aimed at both moms and kids at the have vested interests, but where one accedes to the other’s
same time? With advertising to kids increasingly coming wishes. Finally, more research is needed in the area of ethical and
under the public scanner, it may be important to reach out public policy implications of targeting and positioning toward
to other members of the decision-making unit. Brand family members. We hope that this study provides an impetus for
managers can use the emotional connection to tie together more research in an area that has significant implications for
the diverse values of various family members. Thus, brand branding, brand management, consumption behavior of multiple
managers should adopt a positioning strategy that seeks to members of a basic decision-making unit, that is, family.
connect the values of various family members through love.
Love as the theme has the unique ability to overcome References
resistance from different family members. Doritos has Aaker, D.A. and Joachimsthaler, E. (2000), “The brand
managed to do that. Although Pepsi had pledged not to relationship spectrum”, CA Management Review, Vol. 42
advertise to children, it has managed to attract children who No. 4, pp. 8-23.
drive a large part of its consumption. Albert, N., Merunka, D. and Valette-Florence, P. (2008),
Managers generally try to leverage the “pester-power” of “When consumers love their brands: exploring the concept
children to induce parents to make purchases for kids and its dimensions”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 61
(McDermott, O’Sullivan, Stead, and Hastings, 2006). However, No. 10, pp. 1062-1075.
advertising based on inducing pester power is not considered to Alden, D.L., Steenkamp, J.B.E.M. and Batra, R. (1999),
be ethical (Lawlor and Prothero, 2011). To avoid issues with “Brand positioning through advertising in Asia, North
stakeholders, brand managers need to take an alternative route to America, and Europe: the role of global consumer culture”,
reach out to their target segment without jeopardizing the market Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63 No. 1, pp. 75-87.
share of brands. Viewing through the lens of value congruency, Ambler, T. (2008), “Who’s messing with whose mind?
brand managers can use a more subtle method to reach out to Debating the nairn and fine argument”, International
consumers (especially children). Sony PlayStation uses family Journal of Advertising, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 885-895.
time as its positioning to reach out to children. With enhanced Atkin, C.K. (1978), “Observation of parent-child interaction
public policy scrutiny of advertising to children, value in supermarket decision-making”, The Journal of Marketing,
congruency is a contingent approach that can be used more Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 41-45.
effectively. Batra, R., Ahuvia, A. and Bagozzi, R.P. (2012), “Brand love”,
Finally, the principles highlighted in this study would apply to Journal of Marketing, Vol. 76 No. 2, pp. 1-16.
the various dimensions of family purchase behavior, namely, Beatty, S.E. and Talpade, S. (1994), “Adolescent influence in
father–son purchases, entire-family purchases and perhaps even family decision making: a replication with extension”,
extended family purchases like vacation homes. The managers Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 332-341.
can work toward identifying a common goal, by using which the Becker, S. (2015), “Do you know who spends all day thinking
entire marketing strategy can be developed. Ultimately, the about your kids?”, available at: www.cheatsheet.com/
proposed multi-tiered framework provides managers with business/why-kid-focused-fast-food-marketing-is-
prescriptions to develop a comprehensive brand strategy. economically-toxic.html/?a⫽viewall
Belch, G.E., Belch, M.A. and Ceresino, G. (1985), “Parental
Limitations and future research and teenage child influences in family decision making”,
Limitations of this study include its reliance on secondary data Journal of Business Research, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 163-176.
and use of content analyses. While this post hoc approach does Belch, M.A. and Willis, L.A. (2002), “Family decision at the
yield some insights, it is limited in its generalizability and in its turn of the century: has the changing structure of

78
 Brands, love and family Journal of Product & Brand Management
Pramod P. Iyer, Audhesh K. Paswan and Arezoo Davari Volume 25 · Number 1 · 2016 · 69 –83

households impacted the family decision-making process?”, Cova, B. and Salle, R. (2008), “The industrial/consumer
Journal of Consumer Behavior, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 111-124. marketing dichotomy revisited: a case of outdated
Berey, L.A. and Pollay, R.W. (1968), “The influencing role of justification?”, The Journal of Business and Industrial
the child in family decision making”, Journal of Marketing Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 3-11.
Research, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 70-72. Cunningham, I.C. and Green, R.T. (1974), “Purchasing roles
Bhat, S. and Reddy, S.K. (1998), “Symbolic and functional in the US Family, 1955 and 1973”, Journal of Marketing,
positioning of brands”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 61-64.
Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 32-43. Davis, H.L. (1971), “Measurement of husband-wife influence
Blankson, C. and Kalafatis, S.P. (2007), “Positioning in consumer purchase decisions”, Journal of Marketing
strategies of international and multicultural-oriented service Research, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 305-312.
brands”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 6, Davis, H.L. (1976), “Decision making within the household”,
pp. 435-450. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 241-260.
Blankson, C. and Strutton, D. (2011), “A longitudinal Douglas, S.P. and Craig, C.S. (2006), “On improving the
examination of positioning strategies in a liberalized conceptual foundations of international marketing
developing African economy: the case of Ghana”, research”, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 1,
Thunderbird International Business Review, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
pp. 51-67. Douglas, S.P. and Nijssen, E.J. (2003), “On the use of
Blood, R.O., Jr and Wolfe, D.M. (1960), Husbands And ‘borrowed’ scales in cross-national research: a cautionary
Wives: The Dynamics of Married Living, Free Press, New note”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 20 No. 6,
York, NY. pp. 621-642.
Boxx, W.R., Odom, R.Y. and Dunn, M.G. (1991), Edwards, J.R. and Cable, D.M. (2009), “The value of value
“Organizational values and value congruency and their congruence”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 94 No. 3,
impact on satisfaction, commitment, and cohesion: an pp. 654-677.
empirical examination within the public sector”, Public Epp, A.M. and Price, L.L. (2008), “Family identity: a
Personnel Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 195-205.
framework of identity interplay in consumption practices”,
Brakus, J.J., Schmitt, B.H. and Zarantonello, L. (2009),
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 50-70.
“Brand experience: what is it? How is it measured? Does it
Fay, M. and Currier, G. (1994), “The rise and fall of the copy
affect loyalty?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 73 No. 3,
point: the changing information content of print
pp. 52-68.
advertisements from 1953-1988”, European Journal of
Brody, G.H., Stoneman, Z., Lane, T.S. and Sanders, A.K.
Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 10, pp. 19-31.
(1981), “Television food commercials aimed at children,
Ferber, R. and Lee, L.C. (1974), “Husband-wife influence in
family grocery shopping, and mother-child interactions”,
family purchasing behavior”, Journal of Consumer Research,
Family Relations, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 435-439.
Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 43-50.
Bruni, F. (2013), “Are kids too coddled?”, The New York
Fern, E.F. and Brown, J.R. (1984), “The industrial/consumer
Times, available at: www.nytimes.com/2013/11/24/opinion/
marketing dichotomy: a case of insufficient justification”,
sunday/bruni-are-kids-too-coddled.html?pagewanted⫽
alland_r⫽0 (accessed 10 August 2014). Journal of Marketing, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 68-77.
Burns, A.C. and Granbois, D.H. (1980), “Advancing the Fetscherin, M., Boulanger, M., Gonçalves Filho, C. and
study of family purchase decision making”, Advances in Quiroga Souki, G. (2014), “The effect of product category
Consumer Research, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 221-226. on consumer brand relationships”, Journal of Product &
Burns, D.J. (1992), “Husband-wife innovative consumer Brand Management, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 78-89.
decision making: exploring the effect of family power”, Filiatrault, P. and Ritchie, J.B. (1980), “Joint purchasing
Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 175-189. decisions: a comparison of influence structure in family and
Carroll, B.A. and Ahuvia, A.C. (2006), “Some antecedents couple decision-making units”, Journal of Consumer
and outcomes of brand love”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 17 Research, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 131-140.
No. 2, pp. 79-89. Fournier, S. and Lee, L. (2009), “Getting brand communities
Chunovic, L. (2001), “Change ahead for channels”, Electronic right”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 87 No. 4,
Media, Vol. 20 No. 31, p. 1. pp. 105-111.
Commuri, S. and Gentry, J.W. (2000), “Opportunities for Foxman, E.R. and Tansuhaj, P.S. (1988), “Adolescents’ and
family research in marketing”, Academy of Marketing Science mothers’ perceptions of relative influence in family purchase
Review, Vol. 2000 No. 8, pp. 1-34. decisions: patterns of agreement and disagreement”,
Corfman, K.P. and Lehmann, D.R. (1987), “Models of Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 449-453.
cooperative group decision-making and relative influence: Foxman, E.R., Tansuhaj, P.S. and Ekstrom, K.M. (1989b),
an experimental investigation of family purchase decisions”, “Family members’ perceptions of adolescents’ influence in
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 1-13. family decision making”, Journal of Consumer Research,
Cova, B. and Pace, S. (2006), “Brand community of Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 482-491.
convenience products: new forms of customer French, J.R.P. and Raven, B. (1959), “The bases of social
empowerment-the case ‘my Nutella the community’”, power”, in Cartwright, D. (Ed.), Síudies in Social Power,
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 40 Nos 9/10, University of Michigan Institute for Social Research, Ann
pp. 1087-1105. Arbor, MN, pp. 150-167.

79
 Brands, love and family Journal of Product & Brand Management
Pramod P. Iyer, Audhesh K. Paswan and Arezoo Davari Volume 25 · Number 1 · 2016 · 69 –83

Gkiouzepas, L. and Hogg, M.K. (2011), “Articulating a new Kirchler, E. (1990), “Spouses’ influence strategies in purchase
framework for visual metaphors in advertising”, Journal of decisions as dependent on conflict type and relationship
Advertising, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 103-120. characteristics”, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 11
Goodwin, B. (2013), “The undeniable influence of kids”, No. 1, pp. 101-118.
Packaging Digest, available at: www.packagingdigest.com/ Kirmani, A. and Rao, A.R. (2000), “No pain, no gain: a
packaging-design/undeniable-influence-kids (accessed 10 critical review of the literature on signaling unobservable
August, 2014). product quality”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 64 No. 2,
Green, R.T. and Cunningham, I.C. (1975), “Feminine role pp. 66-79.
perception and family purchasing decisions”, Journal of Kolbe, R.H. and Burnett, M.S. (1991), “Content-analysis
Marketing Research, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 325-332. research: an examination of applications with directives for
Grisaffe, D.B. and Nguyen, H.P. (2011), “Antecedents of improving research reliability and objectivity”, Journal of
emotional attachment to brands”, Journal of Business Consumer Research, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 243-250.
Research, Vol. 64 No. 10, pp. 1052-1059. Kressmann, F., Sirgy, M.J., Herrmann, A., Huber, F., Huber,
Gunter, B. and Furnham, A. (1998), Children as Consumers: A S. and Lee, D.J. (2006), “Direct and indirect effects of
Psychological Analysis of the Young People’s Market, self-image congruence on brand loyalty”, Journal of Business
Routledge, London. Research, Vol. 59 No. 9, pp. 955-964.
Hamilton, K. and Catterall, M. (2006), “Consuming love in Labrecque, J. and Ricard, L. (2001), “Children’s influence on
poor families: children’s influence on consumption family decision-making: a restaurant study”, Journal of
decisions”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 22 Business Research, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 173-176.
Nos 9/10, pp. 1031-1052. Lackman, C. and Lanasa, J.M. (1993), “Family
Hémar-Nicolas, V. and Gollety, M. (2012), “Using brand decision-making theory: an overview and assessment”,
character when targeting children: what for? An exploration Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 81-93.
of managers’ and children’s viewpoints”, Young Consumers, Lawlor, M.A. and Prothero, A. (2011), “Pester power–a battle
Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 20-29. of wills between children and their parents”, Journal of
Marketing Management, Vol. 27 Nos 5/6, pp. 561-581.
Hirschman, E.C. and Holbrook, M.B. (1982), “Hedonic
Lee, C.K. and Beatty, S.E. (2002), “Family structure and
consumption: emerging concepts, methods and
influence in family decision making”, Journal of Consumer
propositions”, The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46 No. 3,
Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 24-41.
pp. 92-101.
Livingstone, S. (2009), “Debating children’s susceptibility to
Holbrook, M.B. and O’Shaughnessy, J. (1984), “The role of
persuasion – where does fairness come in? A commentary
emotion in advertising”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 1
on the Nairn and Fine versus Ambler debate”, International
No. 2, pp. 45-64.
Journal of Advertising, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 170-174.
Hwang, J. and Kandampully, J. (2012), “The role of
McCracken, G. (1988), Culture and Consumption, Indiana
emotional aspects in younger consumer-brand
University Press, Bloomington, IN.
relationships”, Journal of Product & Brand Management,
McDermott, L., O’Sullivan, T., Stead, M. and Hastings, G.
Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 98-108.
(2006), “International food advertising, pester power and
Ji, M.F. (2002), “Children’s relationships with brands: ‘true its effects”, International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 25
love’ or ‘one-night’ stand?”, Psychology and Marketing, No. 4, pp. 513-539.
Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 369-387. McDonald, M. and Lavelle, M. (2001), “Call it kid-fluence”,
Joag, S.G., Gentry, J.W. and Ekstrom, K. (1991), “An US News and World Report, Vol. 131 No. 4, pp. 32-34.
investigation of a role/goal model of wives’ role overload McNeal, J.U. (1992), Kids as Customers: A Handbook of
reduction strategies”, Advances in Consumer Research, Marketing to Children, Lexington Books, New York, NY.
Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 666-672. McNeal, J.U. (1999), The Kids Market: Myths and Realities,
Kalafatis, S.P., Tsogas, M.H. and Blankson, C. (2000), Paramount Market Publishing, New York, NY.
“Positioning strategies in business markets”, Journal of Madill-Marshall, J.J., Heslop, L. and Duxbury, L. (1995),
Business and Industrial Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 6, “Coping with household stress in the 1990s: who uses‘
pp. 416-437. convenience foods’ and do they help?”, Advances in
Kassarjian, H.H. (1977), “Content analysis in consumer Consumer Research, Vol. 22 No. 1, p. 729.
research”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 4 No. 1, Mangleburg, T.F. (1990), “Children’s influence in purchase
pp. 8-18. decisions: a review and critique”, Advances in Consumer
Keller, K.L. and Lehmann, D.R. (2006), “Brands and Research, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 813-825.
branding: research findings and future priorities”, Marketing Mehrotra, S. and Torges, S. (1977), “Determinants of
Science, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 740-759. children’s influence on mothers’ buying behavior”,
Kennedy, P.F. and McGarvey, M.G. (2008), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 56-60.
“Animal-companion depictions in women’s magazine Miyazaki, A.D., Grewal, D. and Goodstein, R.C. (2005),
advertising”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 61 No. 5, “The effect of multiple extrinsic cues on quality
pp. 424-430. perceptions: a matter of consistency”, Journal of Consumer
Kim, C. and Lee, H. (1996), “A taxonomy of couples based Research, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 146-153.
on influence strategies: the case of home purchase”, Journal Moore-Shay, E.S. and Lutz, R.J. (1988), “Intergenerational
of Business Research, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 157-168. influences in the formation of consumer attitudes and

80
 Brands, love and family Journal of Product & Brand Management
Pramod P. Iyer, Audhesh K. Paswan and Arezoo Davari Volume 25 · Number 1 · 2016 · 69 –83

beliefs about the marketplace: mothers and daughters”, Sheth, J.N. and Parvatiyar, A. (1995), “The evolution of
Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 461-467. relationship marketing”, International Business Review,
Morgan, R.M. and Hunt, S.D. (1994), “The Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 397-418.
commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing”, Shoham, A. and Dalakas, V. (2005), “He said, she said . . .
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 20-38. they said: parents’ and children’s assessment of children’s
Muniz, A.M. Jr, and O’guinn, T.C. (2001), “Brand influence on family consumption decisions”, Journal of
community”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 27 No. 4, Consumer Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 152-160.
pp. 412-432. Singh, A. (2009), “The undeniable influence of kids”,
Nairn, A. and Fine, C. (2008), “Who’s messing with my available at: http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Seven-
mind? The implications of dual-process models for the Dimensions-of-Loveandid⫽1989753 (accessed 10 August
ethics of advertising to children”, International Journal of 2014).
Advertising, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 447-470. Sirgy, M.J., Grewal, D. and Mangleburg, T. (2000), “Retail
Nash, C. (2009), “The parent child purchase relationship”, environment, self-congruity, and retail patronage: an
Unpublished dissertation, available at: http://arrow.dit.ie/ integrative model and a research agenda”, Journal of
cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article⫽1025&context⫽busmas Business Research, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 127-138.
Nelson, M.R. and Paek, H.J. (2007), “A content analysis of Smarty Pants (2013), “Young love”, available at: www.
advertising in a global magazine across seven countries: asksmartypants.com/about-the-family-business/syndicated-
implications for global advertising strategies”, International research
Marketing Review, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 64-86. Spears, N. (2003), “On the use of time expressions in
Nicholls, A.J. and Cullen, P. (2004), “The child–parent promoting product benefits- the metaphoric and the
purchase relationship:‘pester power’, human rights and literal”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 33-44.
retail ethics”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Spiro, R.L. (1983), “Persuasion in family decision-making”,
Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 75-86. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 393-402.
Palan, K.M. and Wilkes, R.E. (1997), “Adolescent-parent Stern, B.B. and Schroeder, J.E. (1994), “Interpretative
interaction in family decision making”, Journal of Consumer
methodology from art and literary criticism: a humanistic
Research, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 159-169.
approach to advertising imagery”, European Journal of
Park, C.W., Jaworski, B.J. and Maclnnis, D.J. (1986),
Marketing, Vol. 28 Nos 8/9, pp. 114-132.
“Strategic brand concept-image management”, Journal of
Stern, B.L. and Resnik, A.J. (1991), “Information content in
Marketing, Vol. 50, pp. 135-145.
television advertising: a replication and extension”, Journal
Park, J., Tansuhaj, P.S. and Kolbe, R.H. (1991), “The role of
of Advertising Research, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 36-46.
love, affection, and intimacy in family decision research”,
Sternberg, R.J. (1986), “A triangular theory of love”,
Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 651-656.
Psychological Review, Vol. 93 No. 2, pp. 119-135.
Pine, K.J. and Nash, A. (2003), “Barbie or betty? Preschool
Strathearn, L., Li, J., Fonagy, P. and Montague, P.R. (2008),
children’s preference for branded products and evidence for
“What’s in a smile? Maternal brain responses to infant facial
gender-linked differences”, Journal of Developmental and
cues”, Pediatrics, Vol. 122 No. 1, pp. 40-51.
Behavioral Pediatrics, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 219-224.
Preston, E. and White, C.L. (2004), “Commodifying kids: Szybillo, G.J. and Sosanie, A. (1977), “Family decision
branded identities and the selling of adspace on kids’ making: husband, wife, and children”, Advances in
networks”, Communication Quarterly, Vol. 52 No. 2, Consumer Research, Vol. 4, pp. 46-49.
pp. 115-128. Tansuhaj, P., Spangenberg, E.R. and McCullough, J. (1995),
Rauschnabel, P.A. and Ahuvia, A.C. (2014), “You’re so “An emotion-based perspective of family purchase
lovable: anthropomorphism and brand love”, Journal of decisions”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 22 No. 1,
Brand Management, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 372-395. pp. 723-728.
Rose, G.M., Boush, D. and Shoham, A. (2002), “Family Thomson, M., MacInnis, D.J. and Whan Park, C. (2005),
communication and children’s purchasing influence: a “The ties that bind: measuring the strength of consumers’
cross-national examination”, Journal of Business Research, emotional attachments to brands”, Journal of Consumer
Vol. 55 No. 11, pp. 867-873. Psychology, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 77-91.
Rose, G.M., Merchant, A. and Bakir, A. (2012), “Fantasy in Tresnak, J.C. (1992), “Content analysis of public health and
food advertising targeted at children”, Journal of Advertising, health-related commercial advertisements, 1930-1990”,
Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 75-90. Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana-
Sarkar, A. and Sreejesh, S. (2014), “Examination of the roles Champaign, IL.
played by brand love and jealousy in shaping customer Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2004), “Evolving to a new
engagement”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, dominant logic for marketing”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68
Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 24-32. No. 1, pp. 1-17.
Shah, A. (2010), “Children as consumers”, available at: www. Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2008), “Service-dominant logic:
globalissues.org/article/237/children-as-consumers continuing the evolution”, Journal of the Academy of
Sheth, J.N. (1974), “A theory of family buying decisions”, in Marketing Science, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 1-10.
Sheth, J. (Ed.), Models of Buyer Behavior:Conceptual, Varki, S., Cooil, B. and Rust, R.T. (2000), “Modeling fuzzy
Quantitative, and Empirical, Harper & Row, New York, NY, data in qualitative marketing research”, Journal of Marketing
pp. 17-33. Research, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 480-489.

81
 Brands, love and family Journal of Product & Brand Management
Pramod P. Iyer, Audhesh K. Paswan and Arezoo Davari Volume 25 · Number 1 · 2016 · 69 –83

Veloutsou, C. and Moutinho, L. (2009), “Brand relationships Zambardino, A. and Goodfellow, J. (2007), “Being ‘affective’
through brand reputation and brand tribalism”, Journal of in branding?”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 23
Business Research, Vol. 62 No. 3, pp. 314-322. Nos 1/2, pp. 27-37.
Wagner, J. and Hanna, S. (1983), “The effectiveness of family Zhang, J. and Bloemer, J.M. (2008), “The impact of value
life cycle variables in consumer expenditure research”, congruence on consumer-service brand relationships”,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 281-291. Journal of Service Research, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 161-178.
Wallace, E., Buil, I. and de Chernatony, L. (2014),
“Consumer engagement with self-expressive brands: brand Further reading
love and WOM outcomes”, Journal of Product & Brand Fournier, S. (1998), “Consumers and their brands:
Management, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 33-42. developing relationship theory in consumer research”,
Webster, F.E. Jr, and Wind, Y. (1972), “A general model for Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 343-353.
understanding organizational buying behavior”, The Journal Fournier, S. and Avery, J. (2011), “The uninvited brand”,
of Marketing, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 12-19. Business Horizons, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 193-207.
Whitebeck, L.B. and Gecas, V. (1988), “Value attributions Holbrook, M.B. and Hirschman, E.C. (1982), “The
and value transmission between parents and children”, experiential aspects of consumption: consumer fantasies,
Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 50 No. 3, feelings, and fun”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9
pp. 829-840. No. 2, pp. 132-140.

Appendix 1

Table AI Brand scored by both moms and kids

Brand rank Brand rank Brand score Brand score Mom – kids
for moms for kids Brand name for moms for kids score
1 32 Crayola 901 830 71
17 47 Snickers 849 799 50
6 28 Reese 873 833 40
9 35 Goldfish 861 826 35
2 14 Disney 884 857 27
5 18 Disney Channel 874 852 22
33 43 Eggo 828 809 19
18 31 Twix 848 831 17
14 21 Chips ahoy 853 842 11
20 29 Starburst 843 832 11
8 13 KitKat 864 858 6
26 27 Pringles 836 834 2
43 37 DQ 818 817 1
25 28 Kraft Mac and Cheese 835 837 ⫺2
46 40 Netflix 812 814 ⫺2
3 4 Hershey 876 880 ⫺4
4 3 MandM 875 884 ⫺9
21 16 Popsicle 843 852 ⫺9
12 7 Doritos 857 870 ⫺13
24 17 Lays 839 852 ⫺13
36 23 Apple 825 841 ⫺16
42 24 ToysrUS 819 838 ⫺19
29 12 YouTube 831 858 ⫺27
22 36 Wii 841 871 ⫺30
44 15 IPod Touch 816 854 ⫺38
48 19 Capri sun 811 849 ⫺38
10 1 Oreo 859 899 ⫺40
23 2 Cheetos 840 884 ⫺44
40 5 Nickelodeon 821 875 ⫺54

82
 Brands, love and family Journal of Product & Brand Management
Pramod P. Iyer, Audhesh K. Paswan and Arezoo Davari Volume 25 · Number 1 · 2016 · 69 –83

Appendix 2 About the authors

Pramod P. Iyer is a doctoral candidate in Marketing. His
research interests include brand management and its related
areas, strategy, sustainable marketing, and advertising. His
Table AII Brands preferred by either moms or kids only
work appears in Journal of Customer Behavior, Social Business,
Rank Brand name Brand score and The Routledge Companion to Contemporary Brand
Brands preferred only by moms Management. He has recently accepted an Assistant Professor
7 Amazon 872 of Marketing position at University of Texas at Rio Grande
11 Target 857 Valley.
13 Lego 855
15 Scholastic 852 Audhesh K. Paswan is a Professor of Marketing. His
16 Google 850 research interests include franchising, brand management,
19 Subway 847 channels, strategy, NPD, macromarketing, service marketing,
25 Campbell 838
cross-cultural and global marketing. His work appears in the
27 Tropicana 835
30 Cheerios 829
Journal of Marketing, Decision Science Journal, Journal of
31 ABC Family 828 Retailing, Journal of International Marketing, Journal of Business
32 Lego.com 828 Research, European Journal of Marketing and Industrial
34 Animal Planet 827 Marketing Management among others. Audhesh K. Paswan is
35 Cheese-it 826 the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
37 Disney.com 825 [email protected]
38 Monopoly 825
39 Nike 824 Arezoo Davari is a a Doctoral Candidate in Marketing at the
41 Quaker Chewy 821 University of North Texas. She has recently accepted an
45 Discovery 812 Assistant Professor of Marketing position at Eastern
47 Olive Garden 812
Washington University. Her research interests include
49 Juicy Juice 811
50 Kellogg’s rice krispies 811
strategic brand portfolio management, sustainable marketing
and advertising. She has published manuscripts in Journal of
Brands preferred only by kids Product and Brand Management, Social Business and Journal of
8 IPad 869
Strategic Marketing.
9 Nintendo DS 861
10 IPod 860
11 McDonalds 858
20 Skittles 845
22 Lunchables 842
26 IPhone 834
30 Pop tarts 831
33 Xbox 828
34 Roll Ups 826
38 Cartoon Network 817
39 Kool Aid 814
41 Pizza Hut 813
42 811
44 Foot 808
45 Kinect 806
46 PlayStation 804
48 ITunes 797
49 GameStop 796
50 Ring pop 796

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]

83