Research purpose: This study investigated the brand romance, -attitude and -loyalty of customers toward their cellphone brands in the North West Province, South Africa.

Motivation for the study: One way in which brand loyalty in the cellphone industry can be achieved is to influence attitudes and, ultimately, create brand loyalty by promoting brand romance between the customer and the brand.

Research design, approach and method: Being quantitative in nature, the study followed a descriptive research design to collect 371 responses through self-administered questionnaires.

Main findings: The results indicated that most respondents were contract customers who only use a brand of cellphone for between one and three years. Brand romance toward cellphone brands was positive although room for improvement exists. Brand attitude toward current cellphone brands was also positive, but brand loyalty was fairly low, indicating that marketers need to improve brand loyalty toward their cellphone brand. There were, furthermore, significant and positive relationships between brand romance, brand attitude and brand loyalty toward cellphone brands.

Practical/managerial implications: Brand romance can be considered to be a viable way of improving attitude toward a cellphone brand, ultimately leading to brand loyalty.

Contribution/value-add: Brand romance in brand relationships has significant and positive relationships with brand attitude and brand loyalty in the cellphone industry of South Africa.

The emotional attachments that consumers foster with brands are important to marketers who wish to establish long-term relationships with their consumers (Long-Tolbert & Gammoh 2012:391). Although emotional attachment has been investigated by numerous authors (Belaid & Behi 2011:38; Hwang & Kandampully 2012:103; Mugge, Schifferstein & Schoormans 2010:271), emotional attachment in terms of brand romance, as proposed by Patwardhan and Balasubramanian (2011:299), merits further investigation, specifically within the cellphone industry (Wang & Li 2012:164, 170).

Brand romance is of importance considering that it enhances attitudinal loyalty (Aurier & De Lanauze 2011:823) and may predict brand loyalty better than brand attitude (Patwardhan & Balasubramanian 2011:304). If brand romance influences brand attitude and brand loyalty, cellphone brands can create, as a means to obtain a competitive advantage, strategies fostering brand romance in order to build brand loyalty. In instances where consumers see their brand in the same way as a romantic partner (as with brand romance), relationships are less expensive to retain and more profitable in the long run for marketers (Hess, Story & Danes 2011:14).

This paper investigates brand romance, brand attitude and brand loyalty toward cellphone brands and also considers whether differences exist between consumers based on demographics and cellphone-patronage habits with respect to these constructs. In the following section, a theoretical background for the study is presented. Subsequently, the problem statement, purpose and objectives, research methodology, findings of the research and discussion follow. Finally, limitations and future research conclude this paper.

Competition between cellphone brands has also increased as a variety of different cellphone handsets and smart phones have started entering the South African market, making them accessible and affordable to South African consumers, as well as making it easier to switch between brands (Berger, Sinha & Pawelczyk 2012; Tubbs 2012). Marketers therefore need to broaden their understanding of how consumers interact and form emotional attachments with their brands in order to foster brand loyalty (Patwardhan & Balasubramanian 2011:299).

Emotional attachment and consumer–brand relationships start with consumers experiencing pleasure (Li, Dong & Chen 2012:136; Mugge et al. 2010:279; Patwardhan & Balasubramanian 2011:299). The association of positive feelings with the brand was labelled by Patwardhan and Balasubramanian (2011:299) as ‘pleasure’. When these positive feelings are intense enough to arouse the consumer in a meaningful or effective way, the second dimension of brand romance – arousal – is considered to be at play (Patwardhan & Balasubramanian 2011:299). Pleasure and arousal have a direct influence on consumers’ actual purchase behaviour (Li et al. 2012:135). Lastly, dominance refers to the tendency of the brand to engage the consumers’ cognition (Patwardhan & Balasubramanian 2011:299).

An emotional attachment or affective commitment (such as brand romance in terms of an attraction) enhances attitudinal loyalty (Aurier & De Lanauze 2011:823) and thus brand loyalty (Hwang & Kandampully 2012:103). Brand romance as attraction is considered to be a progression beyond a positive attitude (Patwardhan & Balasubramanian 2011:299).

Fishbein (1963:238), as well as Wilkie and Pessemier (1973:428), proposed multi-attribute attitude models where consumers’ beliefs regarding the brand would be rated in terms of attributes in order to form overall evaluations of brands. However, Bagozzi et al. (1979:92–93) posited that attitudes consist of different content dimensions labelled as affective-, behavioural- and cognitive dimensions. As proposed by Wu and Wang (2011:453, 457), this study views brand affection, purchase intention and brand trust as presenting the affective-, behavioural- and cognitive dimensions of brand attitude respectively. Due to the definitional overlap between behavioural brand loyalty (Belaid & Behi 2011:39) and brand purchase intention (Wu & Wang 2011:453, 457), brand attitude was only measured in terms of brand affection and brand trust. In conclusion, consumers’ attitudes predict their purchase intention and behaviour (Bagozzi et al. 1979:88; Tung et al. 2012:998) which, in turn, affect brand loyalty.

Evidently, brand loyalty has two dimensions referred to as attitudinal- and behavioural loyalty (Kuikka & Laukkanen 2012:522; Torres-Moraga, Vásquez-Parraga & Zamora-González 2008:303). Composite loyalty, measuring both attitudinal- and behavioural loyalty (Dick & Basu 1994:102; Oliver 1999:34–35), is used in this study.

Intangible benefits ensure that the brand excels above other brands and result in consumer–brand relationships (such as brand romance) which can create brand loyalty (Lazarevic 2012:55–56; Patwardhan & Balasubramanian 2011:304; Torres-Moraga et al. 2008:308). Also of pertinence to this study is that there is a direct positive effect on brand loyalty stemming from consumers’ perceived enjoyment (pleasure) of using cellphone value-added services (Wang & Li 2012:164, 170). As pleasure is one of the constructs used to measure brand romance, and brand attitude precedes brand loyalty (as discussed above), a clear relation between brand romance, brand attitude and brand loyalty exists within literature. Based upon the literature review presented earlier, the following alternative hypotheses were formulated:

H1: There are significant and positive relationships between brand romance, brand attitude and brand loyalty amongst cellphone users toward their cellphone brands.

H2: Cellphone users perceive the underlying dimensions of both brand romance and brand loyalty as being significantly different from one another.

The hypothesis H2 hypothesis was then refined as follows:

H2_a: Cellphone users perceive the underlying dimensions of brand romance as being significantly different from one another.

H2_b: Cellphone users perceive the underlying dimensions of brand attitude as being significantly different from one another.

Based upon the information referred, the following alternative hypothesis has been formulated for the study:

H3: Cellphone users differ with regard to their brand romance, brand attitude and brand loyalty toward their cellphone brands, based upon their demographic differences.

This hypothesis is refined as follows:

H3_a: Cellphone users differ with regard to their brand romance, brand attitude and brand loyalty toward their cellphone brands, based upon generational differences.

H3_b: Cellphone users differ with regard to their brand romance, brand attitude and brand loyalty toward their cellphone brands, based upon differences in educational level.

H3_c: Cellphone users differ with regard to their brand romance, brand attitude and brand loyalty toward their cellphone brands, based upon gender differences.

H3_d: Cellphone users differ with regard to their brand romance, brand attitude and brand loyalty toward their cellphone brands, based upon differences in employment status.

With respect to patronage habits, the duration of consumer–brand relationships can influence the strength of relationships (Papista & Dimitriadis 2012:49–50), although Homburg, Giering and Menon (2003:52) found that the length of relationship has no effect on loyalty. Based upon this, a further alternative hypothesis has been formulated for the study:

H4: Cellphone users differ with regard to their brand romance, brand attitude and brand loyalty toward their cellphone brands, based upon patronage-habit differences.

This hypothesis is then refined as follows:

H4_a: Cellphone users differ with regard to their brand romance, brand attitude and brand loyalty toward their cellphone brands, based upon the period over which they have been using the particular cellphone brand.

H4_b: Cellphone users differ with regard to their brand romance, brand attitude and brand loyalty toward their cellphone brands, based upon whether they are contract- or prepaid customers of cellphone networks.

The purpose of this study is therefore primarily to investigate brand romance, brand attitude and brand loyalty of consumers toward cellphone brands in South Africa, more specifically the North West Province. The purpose of this study is achieved by the formulation of the following objectives:

• Develop a demographic profile of respondents.
• Investigate the cellphone patronage habits of respondents.
• Determine the level of brand romance that cellphone users experience toward their cellphone brands.
• Determine the attitude of cellphone users toward their cellphone brands.<
• Determine the level of brand loyalty that cellphone users exhibit toward cellphone brands.
• Uncover the relationship between brand romance, brand attitude and brand loyalty toward cellphone brands.
• Determine whether cellphone users differ in terms of their level of brand romance, brand loyalty and brand attitude toward their cellphone brands based upon demographic differences and cellphone patronage habits.

The target population of the study included all those who were 18 years and older at the time of the study, resided in the North West Province of South Africa, who owned a cellphone and who were involved in the purchase of the cellphone they currently owned. A total of 400 questionnaires were fielded and the 371 usable questionnaires were included in the analysis.

The researchers employed a self-administered questionnaire containing closed-ended questions designed to achieve the objectives formulated for the study in order to collect data from the respondents. The questionnaire was structured as follows:

• A preamble provided information explaining the purposes of the questionnaire as well as the rights of the respondents. Screening questions were also included in this section so as to ensure that only eligible respondents completed the questionnaire.

• Section A then included questions designed to develop a demographic profile of respondents.

• Section B examined the cellphone patronage habits of respondents.

• Section C contained a five-point Likert-type scale, where 1 was ‘strongly disagree’ and 5 was ‘strongly agree’, containing the statements that measured the constructs of the study. To measure brand attitude, a scale was adapted from Wu and Wang (2011) who developed the scale based upon the work of Delgado-Ballester (2004), Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2002) and Dodds, Monroe and Grewal (1991). Finally, to measure brand romance, a scale was adopted from Patwardhan and Balasubramanian (2011) and to measure brand loyalty, a scale was adopted from the work of Keller (2001).

The frequencies for all demographic and cellphone patronage-habit variables were calculated (see Tables 1 and 2). The descriptive statistics, means and standard deviations for all statements measuring the constructs under study were also calculated (see Table 3). Reliability statistics for the constructs and their underlying dimensions as reported in Table 4 were also calculated. Construct validity was also assessed and reported on. Subsequently, overall mean scores for these constructs and the underlying dimensions were calculated and are presented in Table 4.

In order to test the hypotheses formulated for the study, a number of parametric tests were conducted. A subsequent section addresses the decision to use parametric tests. The researchers relied on a 95% confidence level and a subsequent significance level of 5% (p-value ≤ 0.05) to interpret the results of the hypothesis testing. The following tests were conducted:

• To determine whether significant and positive relationships exist between constructs, Pearson product moment correlations were performed to test H1. A correlation coefficient (r) of > 0.5 indicates a strong correlation between the two variables, an r of 0.3–0.5 indicates a moderate correlation and an r of 0.1–0.3 a weak correlation (Eiselen, Uys & Potgieter 2007:87). The p-value and correlation coefficient are reported for each correlation (Pallant 2010:135).

• To determine significant differences between the means of pairs of variables, paired sample t-tests were conducted to test H2 (Pallant 2010:244) and means and p-values are reported.

• To determine significant differences between the means of groups for a combination of dependent variables, multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) tests were performed to test H3 and H4. In each instance, the F-value, p-value, Wilks’ Lambda and the partial eta squared are reported where appropriate. A p-value of 0.05 initially signals a significant difference between groups, whilst a Bonferonni adjustment to the p-value signals significant differences between groups with respect to each dependent variable (Pallant 2010:293-296).

Based upon Table 3, the following findings can be observed:

• The statement ‘I am really happy that this brand is available’ realised the highest mean of all statements, measuring brand romance with a mean of 3.90. The statement ‘Sometimes I feel I cannot control my thoughts as they are obsessively focused on this brand’ obtained the lowest mean of 1.66. The underlying dimensions of brand romance realised a mean of 3.67 for pleasure, a mean of 3.44 for arousal and a mean of 1.81 for dominance. The overall mean for brand romance is 2.98.

• The statement ‘I feel confidence in this brand’ obtained the highest mean of all brand attitude statements, with a mean of 3.57. The statement ‘The company which owns this brand will compensate me for a problem I experience with the brand’ obtained the lowest mean, 2.93. The underlying dimensions of brand attitude realised a mean of 3.28 for trust and a mean of 3.25 for affection. The overall mean for brand attitude is 3.27.

• The statement ‘This is the one brand I would prefer to buy or use’ obtained the highest mean of all brand loyalty statements measured, with a mean of 3.18. The statement ‘I buy as much of this brand as I can’ obtained the lowest mean of 2.26. The overall mean for brand loyalty is 2.74.

It is evident from Table 4 that the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient values for the constructs and underlying dimensions are all above 0.7, indicating that the scales are reliable. Such a result allows a researcher to calculate overall mean scores for the underlying dimensions and constructs, allowing for the comparison of the means of different groups and variables when hypotheses are tested.

For the pleasure dimension, the construct validity was confirmed since only one factor could be extracted, explaining 66.58% of the variance. The same goes for the arousal- and dominance dimensions where only one factor could be extracted, explaining 77.48% and 79.49% of the variance respectively.

Wu and Wang (2011) illustrate discriminant- and convergent validity for the scale measuring the construct ‘brand attitude’ taken from the work of Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2002), Delgado-Ballester (2004) and Dodds et al. (1991). Construct validity was confirmed for the affection dimension of brand attitude since only one factor could be extracted, explaining 85.97% of the variance. For the trust dimension of brand attitude, two factors explaining 76.55% of the variance could be extracted but a second-order factor analysis was considered redundant and only one second-order factor could be revealed.

The scale measuring brand loyalty was taken from the work of Keller (2001). Construct validity was confirmed for this construct since only one factor could be extracted, explaining 66.17% of the variance.

• There is a significant and strong positive relationship (p-value < 0.0005; r = 0.751) between brand romance and brand attitude.
• There is a significant and strong positive relationship (p-value < 0.0005; r = 0.765) between brand romance and brand loyalty.
• There is a significant and strong positive relationship (p-value < 0.0005; r = 0.768) between brand attitude and brand loyalty.

H1, proposing that there are significant and positive relationships between brand romance, brand attitude and brand loyalty amongst cellphone users toward their cellphone brands, can therefore be accepted.

• Cellphone users perceive the underlying dimensions of brand romance as being significantly different from one another. They derive significantly more pleasure (mean = 3.67) from their current cellphone brands than the extent to which they are aroused by their cellphone brands (mean = 3.44; p-value < 0.0005). They also derive significantly more pleasure (mean = 3.67) from their current cellphone brands than the extent to which their current cellphone brands are dominant (mean = 1.81; p-value < 0.0005) in their lives. Finally, they are significantly more aroused (mean = 3.44) by their cellphone brands than the extent to which their current cellphone brands are dominant in their lives (mean = 1.81; p-value < 0.0005) (H2_a).

• Cellphone users do not perceive the underlying dimensions of brand attitude as being significantly different from one another, as a significant difference between trust (mean = 3.28) and affection (mean = 3.25; p-value = 0.320) could not be uncovered (H2_b).

H2_a, proposing that cellphone users perceive the underlying dimensions of brand romance as being significantly different from one another, can therefore be accepted.

H2_b, proposing that cellphone users perceive the underlying dimensions of brand attitude as being significantly different from one another, can therefore not be accepted.

• Cellphone users do not differ with regard to their brand romance, brand attitude and brand loyalty toward their cellphone brands based upon generational differences (F = 1.121; p-value = 0.348; Wilks’ Lambda = 0.981) (H3_a).

• Cellphone users do not differ with regard to their brand romance, brand attitude and brand loyalty toward their cellphone brands based upon different levels of education (F = 1.789; p-value = 0.149; Wilks’ Lambda = 0.985) (H3_b).

• Upon initial investigation, it seems that cellphone users differ with regard to their brand romance, brand attitude and brand loyalty toward their cellphone brands based upon gender (F = 3.473; p-value = 0.016; Wilks’ Lambda = 0.972; partial eta squared = 0.028). When considering the results of each dependent variable in isolation based upon the p-value of 0.017 (a Bonferroni adjustment was made to the p-value to compensate for the three simultaneous comparisons made by the MANOVA), no statistically-significant differences could be uncovered between men and women for brand romance (p-value = 0.018), brand attitude (p-value = 0.499) and brand loyalty (p-value = 0.035) (H3_c).

• Cellphone users do not differ with regard to their brand romance, brand attitude and brand loyalty toward their cellphone brands based upon differences in employment status (F = 0.623; p-value = 0.600; Wilks’ Lambda = 0.995) (H3_d).

H3, proposing that cellphone users differ with regard to their brand romance, brand attitude and brand loyalty toward their cellphone brands based upon their demographic differences, can therefore not be accepted.

• Upon initial investigation, it seems that cellphone users differ with regard to their brand romance, brand attitude and brand loyalty toward their cellphone brands, based upon the period they have been using the particular cellphone brand (F = 4.369; p-value = 0.005; Wilks’ Lambda = 0.964; partial eta squared = 0.036). When considering the results of each dependent variable in isolation, based upon a p-value of 0.017 (a Bonferroni adjustment was made to the p-value to compensate for the three simultaneous comparisons made by the MANOVA), no statistically-significant differences could be uncovered based upon the period for which they have been using the particular cellphone brand for brand romance (p-value = 0.971), brand attitude (p-value = 0.702) and brand loyalty (p-value = 0.029) (H4_a).

• Cellphone users do not differ with regard to their brand romance, brand attitude and brand loyalty towards their cellphone brands based upon whether they are contract or prepaid customers of cellphone networks (F = 1.617; p-value = 0.185; Wilks’ Lambda = 0.987) (H4_b).

H4, proposing that cellphone users differ with regard to their brand romance, brand attitude and brand loyalty toward their cellphone brands based upon patronage habit differences, can therefore not be accepted.

It is also evident that the majority of respondents use a brand of cellphone for between one and three years, which is indicative of a fair amount of brand switching taking place in the handset market. It is thus imperative for marketers of cellphone brands to retain customers, once they have chosen their particular brand, beyond the current contract period. Strategies to prevent switching include communicating the risk involved with switching, the difficulty of evaluating alternatives (for example, new innovative features of other cellphone brands), the hassles of setting up a new relationship as well as increasing the strength of consumers’ psychological bonds (for example, increasing brand romance) with the brand (Burnham, Frels & Mahajan 2003:120).

The results also indicate that brand romance toward current cellphone brands is positive, although plenty of room for improvement exists. As proposed by Patwardhan and Balasubramanian (2011:304), marketers of cellphone brands should focus on providing brands which offer consumers novel activities in order to increase and maintain brand romance. These novel activities should not only be focused on technological developments of cellphone handsets (the product), but could also include the other aspects of marketing, such as new distribution channels, adapting prices, repositioning the brand and communicating as a partner with consumers instead of a business partner out for profit gain.

Brand attitude toward current cellphone brands is also positive. To enhance and maintain brand attitude in terms of trust and affection, marketers of cellphone brands should establish trust through open lines of communication, provide guarantees on their product brand, establish the brand as socially acceptable by considering consumers’ interests and welfare and provide benefits that consumers regard as being important.

Brand loyalty realised a mean that indicated fairly low brand loyalty. It is therefore imperative for marketers of cellphone brands to improve brand loyalty toward their cellphone brand as the apparent lack of brand loyalty is echoed in the patronage habits of respondents. Brand loyalty can be improved by matching the cellphone brand closely with the aspirations and wants of the selected target market. Brand romance, trust in the brand (as part of consumers’ brand attitude), positive experiences with the brand and intangible benefits offered by the brand (increasing consumers’ confidence that their brand will satisfy their needs), may contribute even more toward moving consumers who are new to the brand or not yet loyal, to becoming brand-loyal consumers.

Furthermore, the results indicate significant and positive relationships between brand romance, brand attitude and brand loyalty toward cellphone brands. Brand romance can thus be considered a viable way of improving consumer attitude toward a cellphone brand, ultimately leading to brand loyalty. Generating brand romance between a cellphone brand and consumers could thus eventually pay off in brand loyalty. This can be done by associating the brand with pleasure and assuring that the brand is distributed effectively.

With regard to brand romance, the respondents indicate that they derive pleasure from their cellphone brands. Their current brand of cellphone arouses them to a limited extent and they do not consider the specific brand to be particularly dominant in their lives. An opportunity thus exists for marketers to either capitalise on the pleasure dimension of brand romance, since it is already a powerful dimension with respect to cellphone brands, or to improve arousal and dominance toward their particular cellphone brand amongst customers, since these are weak dimensions of brand romance. Marketers of cellphone brands should therefore focus on providing satisfactory products and services in order to elicit pleasure (Mugge et al. 2010:279). Furthermore, marketers of cellphone brands can remind consumers continuously by means of marketing communications of the pleasure associated with using their cellphone brand for value-added functions such as social networking, internet access (banking, shopping and browsing) and applications, in an effort to intensify their pleasure and arouse the consumers. Frequent interaction between the marketers of cellphone brands and consumers may result in the brand becoming more dominant in consumers’ lives (Patwardhan & Balasubramanian 2011:304). Differentiation might also cause higher brand romance through increasing arousal and dominance, as differentiation establishes stronger bonds of identity (Burnham et al. 2003:119) and thus attachment. Differentiation is possible through being at the cutting edge of technological developments or by being a cost leader in the industry.

Respondents do not differ with regard to their brand romance, brand attitude and brand loyalty toward their cellphone brands based upon demographic or patronage habit differences. From these results, it does not seem that it would be viable for marketers to differentiate their target market according to demographics or patronage habits when trying to increase their consumers’ brand romance, brand attitude and brand loyalty.

Several suggestions for future research can also be made. Since brand romance is considered to be specific to a particular product (Patwardhan & Balasubramanian 2011:299), opportunities exist to measure it for different products in different contexts. Since previous studies found differences based upon culture relating to consumer–brand relationships with cellphone brands (Hakala, Svensson & Vincze 2012:445; Liu et al. 2012:933), this can be explored further. A longitudinal study could also be undertaken in order to measure brand romance, brand attitude and brand loyalty toward cellphone brands over time.

As brand romance in brand relationships is related positively to brand attitude and brand loyalty, this study identified brand romance as being a viable option for cellphone marketers to improve brand attitude and brand loyalty amongst their consumers.

Aurier, P. & De Lanauze, G.S., 2011, ‘Impacts of in-store manufacturer brand expression on perceived value, relationship quality and attitudinal loyalty’, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 39(11), 810–835. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09590551111177945

Bagozzi, R.P., Tybout, A.M., Craig, C.S. & Sternthal, B., 1979, ‘The construct validity of the tripartite classification of attitudes’, Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 88–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3150879

Belaid, S. & Behi, A.T., 2011, ‘The role of attachment in building consumer-brand relationships: an empirical investigation in the utilitarian consumption context’, Journal of Product & Brand Management, 20(1), 37–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10610421111108003

Berger, G., Sinha, A. & Pawelczyk, K., 2012, ‘South African mobile generation: study on South African young people on mobiles’, viewed 24 October, from http://www.unicef.org/southafrica/SAF_resources_mobilegeneration.pdf

Burnham, T.A., Frels, J.K. & Mahajan, V., 2003, ‘Consumer switching costs: a typology, antecedents and consequences’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31(2), 109–126. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0092070302250897

Chaudhuri, A. & Holbrook, M.B., 2002, ‘Product-class effects on brand commitment and brand outcomes: the role of brand trust and brand affect’, Journal of Brand Management, 10(1), 33–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.bm.2540100

Day, G.S., 1969, ‘A two-dimensional concept of brand loyalty’, Journal of Advertising Research, 9(3), 29–35.

Delgado-Ballester, E., 2004, ‘Applicability of a brand trust scale across product categories: a multigroup invariance analysis’, European Journal of Marketing, 38(5/6), 573–592. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090560410529222

Dick, A.S. & Basu, K., 1994, ‘Customer loyalty: toward an integrated conceptual framework’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22(2), 99–113. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0092070394222001

Dodds, W.B., Monroe, K.B. & Grewal, D., 1991, ‘Effects of price, brand, and store information on buyers’ product evaluations’, Journal of Marketing Research, 28(3), 307–319. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3172866

Eiselen, R., Uys, T. & Potgieter, T., 2007, Analysing survey data using SPSS 13, 3rd edn., Statkon, University of Johannesburg.

Fishbein, M., 1963, ‘An investigation of the relationships between beliefs about an object and the attitude toward that object’, Human Relations, 16, 233–239. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001872676301600302

Franzak, F. & Pitta, D., 2011, ‘Moving from service dominant to solution dominant brand innovation’, Journal of Product & Brand Management, 20(5), 394–401. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10610421111157919

Fripp, C., 2012, ‘Africa’s top-selling mobile handsets’, IT News Africa, viewed 17 May 2013, from http://www.itnewsafrica.com/2012/08/africas-top-selling-mobile-handsets/

Hakala, U., Svensson, J. & Vincze, Z., 2012, ‘Consumer-based brand equity and top-of-mind awareness: a cross-country analysis’, Journal of Product & Brand Management, 21(6), 439–451. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10610421211264928

Hawkins, D.I. & Mothersbaugh, D.L., 2010, Consumer behavior: building marketing strategy, McGraw-Hill, New York.

Hess, J., Story, J. & Danes, J., 2011, ‘A three-stage model of consumer relationship investment’, Journal of Product & Brand Management, 20(1), 14–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10610421111107987

Homburg, C. & Giering, A., 2001, ‘Personal characteristics as moderators of the relationship between customer satisfaction and loyalty – an empirical analysis’, Psychology & Marketing, 18(1), 43–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1520-6793(200101)18:1<43::AID-MAR3>3.0.CO;2-I

Homburg, C., Giering, A. & Menon, A., 2003, ‘Relationship characteristics as moderators of the satisfaction–loyalty link: finding in a business-to-business context’, Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, 10(3), 35–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J033v10n03_02

Hoyer, W.D., MacInnis, D.J. & Pieters, R., 2013, Consumer behavior, 6th international edn., South-Western Cengage Learning, Mason, Ohio.

Hwang, J. & Kandampully, J., 2012, ‘The role of emotional aspects in younger consumer-brand relationships’, Journal of Product & Brand Management, 21(2), 98–108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10610421211215517

Ismail, A.R. & Spinelli, G., 2012, ‘Effects of brand love, personality and image on word of mouth: the case of fashion brands among young consumers’, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 16(4), 386–398. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13612021211265791

Keller, K.L., 2001, ‘Building customer-based brand equity: a blueprint for creating strong brands’, Marketing Sciences Institute, 1(107), 1–31.

Kuikka, A. & Laukkanen, T., 2012, ‘Brand loyalty and the role of hedonic value’, Journal of Product & Brand Management, 21(7), 529–537. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10610421211276277

Lazarevic, V., 2012, ‘Encouraging brand loyalty in fickle generation Y consumers’, Young Consumers: Insight and Ideas for Responsible Marketers, 13(1), 45–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17473611211203939

Li, M., Dong, Z.Y. & Chen, X., 2012, ‘Factors influencing consumption experience of mobile commerce: a study from experiential view’, Internet Research, 22(2), 120–141. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10662241211214539

Liu, F., Li, J., Mizerski, D. & Soh, H., 2012, ‘Self-congruity, brand attitude, and brand loyalty: a study on luxury brands’, European Journal of Marketing, 46(7/8), 922–937. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090561211230098

Long-Tolbert, S.J. & Gammoh, B.S., 2012, ‘In good and bad times: the interpersonal nature of brand love in service relationships’, Journal of Services Marketing, 26(6), 391–402. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/08876041211257882

Malhotra, N.K., 2007, Marketing research: an applied orientation, 5th edn., Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J.

Matsunaga, M., 2010, ‘How to factor-analyze your data right: do’s, don’ts, and how-to’s’, International Journal of Psychological Research, 3(1), 97–110.

Mugge, R., Schifferstein, H.N.J. & Schoormans, J.P.L., 2010, ‘Product attachment and satisfaction: understanding consumers’ post-purchase behavior’, Journal of Consumer Marketing, 27(3), 271–282. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/07363761011038347

Oliver, R.L., 1999, ‘Whence consumer loyalty?’, Journal of Marketing. Fundamental Issues and Directions for Marketing, 63, 33–44.

Pallant, J., 2010, SPSS Survival manual, 3rd edn., McGraw-Hill, New York.

Papista, E. & Dimitriadis, S., 2012, ‘Exploring consumer-brand relationship quality and identification: qualitative evidence from cosmetics brands’, Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 15(1), 33–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13522751211191982

Patwardhan, H. & Balasubramanian, S.K., 2011, ‘Brand romance: a complementary approach to explain emotional attachment toward brands’, Journal of Product & Brand Management, 20(4), 297–308. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10610421111148315

Petruzzellis, L., 2010, ‘Mobile phone choice: technology versus marketing. The brand effect in the Italian market’, European Journal of Marketing, 44(5), 610–634. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090561011032298

Sarkar, A., 2011, ‘Romancing with a brand: a conceptual analysis of romantic consumer-brand relationship’, Management & Marketing, 6(1), 79–94.

Sibanda, M., 2008, ‘South Africa’s mobile industry rated fourth fastest growing’, viewed 24 October 2012, from http://www.itnewsafrica.com/2008/11/south-africas-mobile-industry-rated-fourth-fastest-growing/

Solomon, M.R., 2013, Consumer behavior: buying, having, and being, 10th global edn., Pearson Education Limited, Harlow, U.K.

SouthAfrica.info, 2012, ‘South Africa’s telecommunications’, viewed 24 October 2012, from http://www.southafrica.info/business/economy/infrastructure/telecoms.htm

South African Advertising Research Foundation, 2012, ‘Cell phone trends’, viewed 24 October 2012, from http://www.saarf.co.za/amps/cellphone.asp

Torres-Moraga, E., Vásquez-Parraga, A.Z. & Zamora-González, J., 2008, ‘Customer satisfaction and loyalty: start with the product, culminate with the brand’, Journal of Consumer Marketing, 25(5), 302–313. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/07363760810890534

Tubbs, B., 2012, ‘SA’s cellphone market defined’, viewed 24 October 2012, from http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00070701211241581

Wang, W.T. & Li, H.M., 2012, ‘Factors influencing mobile services adoption: a brand-equity perspective’, Internet Research, 22(2), 142–179. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10662241211214548

Wilkie, W.L. & Pessemier, E.A., 1973, ‘Issues in marketing’s use of multi-attribute attitude models’, Journal of Marketing Research, 10(4), 428–441. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3149391

Wilson, A., Zeithaml, V.A., Bitner, M.J. & Gremler, D.D., 2012, Services marketing: integrating customer focus across the firm, 2nd European edn., McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead, Berkshire.

Wu, P.C.S. & Wang, Y.C., 2011, ‘The influences of electronic word-of-mouth message appeal and message source credibility on brand attitude’, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 23(4), 448–472. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13555851111165020

Ye, L., Bose, M. & Pelton, L., 2012, ‘Dispelling the collective myth of Chinese consumers: a new generation of brand-conscious individualists’, Journal of Consumer Marketing, 29(3), 190–201. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/07363761211221729