The impact of rebranding on clubmember relationships

Carolin PlewaThe University of Adelaide Business School,

The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia

Vinh LuSchool of Management, Marketing and International Business,

College of Business and Economics, Australian National University,Canberra, Australia, and

Roberta VealeThe University of Adelaide Business School,

The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the response of members to a rebranding strategyimplemented by a member-owned organisation. More specifically, the authors examine the impact ofrebranding awareness and attitude towards rebranding on the members’ perceived value of theirmemberships, their satisfaction and, subsequently, their commitment to the organisation.

Design/methodology/approach – The research employed in-depth interviews followed by aquantitative survey. Data were collected online from 264 current members of Dogs SA and data analysisemployed SEM principles.

Findings – Findings demonstrate that the members’ awareness of a rebranding attempt cansignificantly enhance perceived membership value, leading to increased levels of satisfaction. Withboth perceived value and satisfaction antecedents of membership commitment, the importance of suchimprovements cannot be underestimated.

Research limitations/implications – Despite a high response rate of 88 per cent, only ten per centof the membership base was included in the initial sample. Limitations relate to the single context,a canine association, and single rebranding attempt examined in this paper. Only three outcomemeasures were included, namely membership value, satisfaction and commitment.

Practical implications – While non-profit member-owned organisations play an increasinglyimportant role in our economic and social environment, participation rates are dropping in many suchorganisations. If they are to remain viable, the commitment of existing members must be improved. Thestudy provides managers with important insight into a potentially powerful strategy to increaseunderpin membership dedication by means of satisfaction and enhanced perceived value.

Originality/value – This paper successfully integrates relationship marketing and rebrandingliterature domains, producing significant implications for non-profit membership organisations.

Keywords Australia, Non-profit organizations, Brands, Relationship marketing

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionMember-owned organisations, involved in a wide range of community-based activities(often in a not-for-profit capacity), form an important part of our economic and socialfabric (Katz and Rosenberg, 2005). For these organisations, retaining existing membersand recruiting new ones is critical to their long-term viability. However, the drivers

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1355-5855.htm

APJML23,2

222

Received November 2009Revised November 2010Accepted November 2010

Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing andLogisticsVol. 23 No. 2, 2011pp. 222-242q Emerald Group Publishing Limited1355-5855DOI 10.1108/13555851111120506

of satisfaction with, and commitment to, membership-based organisations have receivedlittle attention by researchers. Only few studies investigate this important context(Gruen et al., 2000; Bhattacharya, 1998; Bhattacharya et al., 1995), despite prolificresearch in the area of relationship marketing (RM). Indeed, much of the literature hasbeen devoted to studies where the benefits of the relationship to both parties areeconomic, ignoring the need to establish and maintain sound relationships withsupporters of volunteer-based and non-profit organisations, where the primarybenefit received by participants is socially grounded (Michalski and Helmig, 2008;Arnett et al., 2003).

While the scarcity of research in the area of membership associations wasacknowledged a decade ago (Bhattacharya, 1998), few theoretical and empiricaladvances have been made in this area. To date, empirical studies have provided someinsight into antecedents of retention, participation and co-production in membershipcontexts, with Gruen et al.’s (2000) study providing knowledge specific to the effect ofnormative, continuance and affective commitment. Identification with the organisationwas confirmed as another critical consideration when seeking to understand membersatisfaction and subsequent retention (Michalski and Helmig, 2008; Arnett et al., 2003).

Identification with the organisation is likely to be particularly important in the eventof the rebranding of an organisation, when significant changes to the identity of a brandare undertaken by management in response to changing market conditions.Nevertheless, research on the influences of rebranding on stakeholder perceptionspost the event is limited (Merrilees and Miller, 2008; Muzellec et al., 2003). In fact, ourreview of the existing literature found no empirical studies specific to the effect ofrebranding efforts on the perception, such as value perception, of stakeholders. This issurprising, as it may be possible to enhance perceptions of the value of a membershipand commitment to a member-owned organisation through refreshing, modernising andlaunching a new brand identity. Moreover, such strategy may provide a soundfoundation for recruitment strategies to stimulate membership growth.

Given the need for the development of a “brand” with which members can stronglyidentify in order to enhance their commitment, this study aims to evaluate the responseof members to a rebranding strategy implemented by a member-owned organisation.More specifically, it seeks to investigate the extent to which members’ perceptions of arebranding exercise enhance the perceived value of an individual’s membership,member satisfaction and, subsequently, commitment to the organisation. Hence, thisstudy aims to engage, and contribute to, both RM and brand management literaturestreams.

This paper is structured as follows. A background for the study is provided byintroducing the reader to the RM literature and its link to branding, in particularrebranding, research. The critical nature of value perceptions, satisfaction and commitmentin relation to the existing literature is also discussed and followed by the development ofhypotheses. The methodology is then outlined, leading into the discussion of results.The paper concludes with contributions to theory and practice, limitations and directionsfor future research.

RM principlesA strong competitive environment, combined with the rapid development of informationtechnology and with social factors, such as low population growth (Egan, 2001),

Club memberrelationships

223

increases difficulties for any organisation to attract new customers (Aijo, 1996).Organisations are, therefore, forced to enhance customer satisfaction in order to fostergreater commitment leading to greater retention of clientele. One strategy is to activelypromote a “two-way” interactive process between the organisation and its customers(Palmer, 2002), aiming to create beneficial outcomes. Based on these conditions, RM hasemerged as one of the most fruitful areas in marketing theory and practice, with a largebody of established literature in the area, albeit strongly dominated bybusiness-to-business contexts (Gruen et al., 2000; Garbarino and Johnson, 1999;Michalski and Helmig, 2008; Palmatier et al., 2006), as well as a specific journal publishedin this discipline (Murphy and Wang, 2006).

However, in analysing RM principles within a membership framework, it must berecognised that there are different characteristics observable between traditional RMcontexts (such as buyer-seller relationships) and those evident in a non-profitenvironment. For example, while buyer-seller relationships often focus on fewindividual key accounts, membership contexts need to consider a generally largenumber of individuals that constitute the membership group (Gruen et al., 2000; Nathanand Webster, 2009). While a focus on few customers implies a significant negativeimpact on business performance if even one member defects, large cohorts do not havethe same inherent risks. Hence, the RM focus in a membership context is believed bysome to lie in the establishment and maintenance of collective bonds and behaviours(Gruen et al., 2000). In addition, member-based organisations often operate on the basisof shared “special interest”, and as such, share characteristics with product or service“sub-cultures” (McAlexander et al., 2002). Hence, a membership linked to one of theseinterest-based communities is somewhat unique because members are more thanconsumers but are in fact and attitude “co-owners” of the organisation and all that itprovides. Importantly, members are also provided with a chance to make their owncontribution to the organisation through their involvement and commitment to it(Bhattacharya, 1998). This provides members with a legitimate basis for perceptions ofentitlement related to the actions and strategies employed by the organisation, includinga rebranding exercise.

Linking RM to branding and rebrandingPalmer (1996) and Sweeney (2001) suggest a strong inter-relationship between the RMand consumer brand relationship/brand development bodies of literature, calling forfurther empirical investigations in this area. Indeed, this was also endorsed in a morerecent discussion of future research priorities for brands and branding research byKeller and Lehmann (2006), who highlight the paucity of research on the social impact ofbranding strategies. While not referring to RM theory in particular, research questionsproposed for future branding inquiries are related to the cultivation of customerrelationships and customer segmentation, leading to multiple relational strategies andprofitability of relationships; all topics that have been studied by RM researchers invarious organisational and consumer contexts.

A strong brand is an invaluable resource of an organisation (Balmer, 2001; Kay, 2006)and has been described as one of the most important intangible assets an organisationpossesses (Kaikati and Kaikati, 2003). While brand saliency has become a priorityfor many organisations (Keller and Lehmann, 2006), building a strong brand isa challenging task (Aaker, 1996). Prolific research has been conducted in

APJML23,2

224

the branding area, with a particular focus on aspects such as brand personality, brandrelationships and brand co-creation (Muniz and O’Guinn, 2001; Fournier, 1998; Aaker,1997; Schouten and McAlexander, 1995).

Recent research on rebrandingIn spite of the extensive nature of the brand management literature, rebrandingstrategies have received very limited academic attention (Kaikati, 2003; Muzellec et al.,2003; Merrilees and Miller, 2008). According to Merrilees and Miller (2008) and Muzellecand Lambkin (2006), the rebranding phenomenon is a complex, yet ubiquitous, corporatemarketing transformation practice that can be defined and categorised in different ways.Rebranding refers to the process of changing the identity of an organisation by creatingand adopting a new brand name (in terms of a new name, symbol, or design), with theintention to establish a new position in the mindset of its stakeholders (Muzellec andLambkin, 2006). Rebranding is a result of certain changes in either external or internalenvironment, and is deemed a time-consuming, very costly and high-risk exercise(Muzellec et al., 2003) that more often leads to failures, and is often received bystakeholders with much less enthusiasm and even some amount of sarcasm (Stuart andMuzellec, 2004).

Successful rebranding, based on the corporate rebranding theory, satisfies sixprinciples (Merrilees and Miller, 2008, p. 546), including:

(1) A suitable brand vision that balances the core ideology of the brand whilstprogressing the brand within the contemporary business conditions.

(2) The retention of some core or peripheral brand concepts to build a bridgebetween the revised brand and the original brand.

(3) The ability to meet new market needs.

(4) A high level of brand orientation through activities such as communication,training and internal marketing.

(5) The alignment of each brand element to the overall corporate brand concept inthe corporate rebranding strategy implementation.

(6) The successful promotion of the new brand to all stakeholders.

Our review of the literature on the rebranding phenomenon yielded seven academicinquiries. The literature appears to be very fragmented and exploratory, and muchtheoretical development in rebranding is required, as recognised by all of the scholarsquoted in Table I. Only two theoretical frameworks were evident, including the brandvision ! brand orientation ! brand strategy implementation rebranding model(Merrilees, 2005) and the theory on corporate rebranding (Merrilees and Miller, 2008).Neither of these two frameworks considered the social effect of rebranding of anorganisation. In terms of methodology, these studies have either been purely conceptual(Kaikati and Kaikati, 2003; Stuart and Muzellec, 2004) or predominantly relied onarchival data (Muzellec et al., 2003; Muzellec and Lambkin, 2006) and single case studydesign (Kaikati, 2003; Merrilees, 2005; Merrilees and Miller, 2008). Further, the principalfocus of these academic inquiries on rebranding has been on the rationale behind therebranding decision, different rebranding types and the conclusion that any rebrandingprocess should be properly managed by top management via a clear implementationstrategy with appropriate marketing mix tactics.

Club memberrelationships

225

Whilst these studies provide valuable insight and contribute to a greater understandingof rebranding requirements in the organisational context (Merrilees and Miller, 2008;Muzellec and Lambkin, 2006), little is provided in relation to the potential (positive ornegative) effect of rebranding on the stakeholders of the organisation. Indeed, none of the

Study Research context MethodologyMain findings onrebranding

Kaikati (2003) An outline of the mainlessons learned fromAccenture’s rebrandingefforts

A single case study ofAccenture

The crucial role of topleadership in thesuccessful rebrandingcampaign and differentprincipal characteristicsof the campaign

Kaikati andKaikati (2003)

Pitfalls of rebranding andimplementation optionsfor rebranding campaign

Conceptual paper Four drawbacks ofrebranding wereidentified and sixstrategic options forimplementing rebrandingcampaign were discussed

Muzellec et al.(2003)

An exploratory review ofrebranding phenomenon

Archived dataset(n ¼ 166)

Various descriptivestatistics on reasons forrebranding, types ofname change, as well asgeographic and industryspread

Stuart andMuzellec (2004)

General viewpoint oncorporate rebranding

Conceptual paper Types and reasons forcorporate rebranding

Merrilees (2005) Rebranding as anelement of brandevolution

A single case study of aCanadian retailer

The author highlights theapplicability of the brandvision ! brandorientation ! brandstrategy implementationframework and theimportance of advertisingin the process of brandevolution

Muzellec andLambkin (2006)

An investigation of therationale behind thecorporate rebrandingexercise and how firmsmanage the rebrandingprocess

Archived dataset(n ¼ 166) and two casestudies in Europeantelecommunicationindustry

Four types of changesthat trigger rebrandingefforts are changes inownership structure,corporate strategy,competitive conditions,or in the environment.Further, the case studiesshow that positive effectscan be achieved throughrebranding if the processis properly managed

Merrilees andMiller (2008)

An examination of theimportance of corporaterebranding in practice

A single case study of aCanadian specialistretailer

The authors proposedand verified sixprinciples of corporaterebranding theory

Table I.Recent studies onrebranding

APJML23,2

226

reviewed studies investigated the rebranding phenomenon of member-owned andoperated entities or the effect of rebranding from the perspective of their stakeholders.This is surprising, given the practical relevance and critical implications for this type oforganisation.

Moreover, the existing studies do not show a consensus related to rebranding outcomesor antecedents (Frantz, 2004; Getz et al., 2008; Muzellec et al., 2003). For instance, whileStuart and Muzellec (2004) claim that rebranding attempts tend to result in more failuresthan successes, Merrilees and Miller (2008) suggest that successful corporate rebrandingcan be achieved via proper communication elements. We further reaffirm Kaikati’s(2003, p. 489) insight that “brands do not exist in isolation”. Hence, in this study, we extendthe literature on the consequence of communication in times of rebranding by focusing onthe concept of rebranding awareness, a major principle of success in the theory ofcorporate rebranding (Merrilees and Miller, 2008), and its potential social outcomes. This isalso consistent with Muzellec and Lambkin’s (2006) finding that a high level of awarenessthroughout the name change is associated with positive brand associations.

Influence of rebranding on perceptions of membersThe principal goal of a rebranding attempt is “to reflect a change in the organisationand/or to foster a new image” (Muzellec and Lambkin, 2006, p. 819); hence, there is asuggestion of rejuvenation and advancement. Indeed, recent empirical research hasindicated that rebranding strategies can be useful to an organisation seeking to changeand/or enhance their image for other reasons than attracting new customers or retainingexisting ones (Wann and Branscombe, 1990; Frantz, 2004; Getz et al., 2008). For example,organisations engaged in a rebranding exercise often choose to strongly communicatenew or updated image-related drivers such as the “values” and “personality” traits of thenew brand, as well as the rationale for the change (Muzellec and Lambkin, 2006).As awareness is one of the key components of brand equity (Aaker, 1991), creatingrebranding awareness is similarly critical, particularly for membership-ownedorganisations. As these organisations are primarily run by members who volunteertheir time and are funded by member donations and membership fees, members are likelyto feel a sense of entitlement related to the actions and strategies employed by theorganisation, such as a rebranding exercise. Hence, rebranding awareness, as a result ofpost-rebranding communication, is likely to be vital. It is here defined as the awareness ofthe rebranding attempt based on information provided by the membership organisations,as well as an understanding of the reasoning behind the change and the associated benefitsof the rebranding efforts.

The organisation may also hope that the rebranding exercise would be seen as aninvestment by the organisation and therefore an act of commitment to, and involvementwith, its members. This type of management-oriented involvement with members hasbeen found in other types of interest type-based communities to result in increasedsatisfaction, participation and loyalty levels (Koh et al., 2007; Koh and Kim, 2003). This iseven more important for non-profit organisations, because the benefits supportersderive from the relationship with the organisation are not likely to be economicallyoriented. In fact, enhanced satisfaction and subsequent increased member commitmentbecome the basis of value exchange.

Concepts of particular importance in a relational context (and specific tomember-owned special-interest-oriented communities) include perceived value,

Club memberrelationships

227

satisfaction and commitment (Geyskens and Steenkamp, 2000; Gounaris, 2005; Koh et al.,2007). “Value” is a fundamental concept in marketing, with literature emerging in thepre-industrial era (Lindgreen and Wynstra, 2005; Sheth and Parvatiyar, 1995).An abstract, complex and dynamic concept (Ravald and Gronroos, 1996), value isgrounded in numerous disciplines (Payne and Holt, 1999); however, the development ofRM theory instigated further and more detailed investigations. While the creation andenhancement of mutual economic value has been described as the purpose of RM(Parvatiyar and Sheth, 2000), and despite the development of a small research stream onrelationship value (Varey et al., 2005), no general consensus was achieved on what valuerepresents or how it is related to RM (Payne and Holt, 2001). In the words of Varey et al.(2005, p. 128): “Somehow, ‘value’ was taken as well understood”.

Value has been conceptualised as an episode and relationship-related construct thatcan be derived at different levels (Ford and McDowell, 1999). The majority ofrelationship studies has measured and analysed value as a single-sided organisationalconcept (Anderson, 1998; Flint et al., 2002), most often in terms of customer-perceivedvalue. Given the membership-specific context of this study, perceived value isconceptualised here as the members’ overall assessment of the associated benefits andusefulness of their membership to them, as well as their ability to utilise the services onoffer to members (Lapierre, 1997; Yang and Peterson, 2004; Zeithaml, 1988).

Perceived value and satisfaction have been described as complementary yet distinctconstructs in a business context (Eggert and Ulaga, 2002). While the interrelationshipbetween satisfaction and value has received little attention, notable exceptions exist(Patterson and Spreng, 1997; Lam et al., 2004; Keith et al., 2004). While perceived valuehas been conceptualised as a cognitive construct, “satisfaction” has most prominentlybeen discussed as an affective measure following the disconfirmation paradigm and,thus, dependent on the degree of difference between consumers’ expectations andperceived performance (Churchill and Suprenant, 1982; Oliver, 1980; Parasuraman et al.,1988). Broad agreement exists in the literature on the importance of satisfaction not onlyfor RM but also for marketing theory as a whole. Indeed, satisfaction has even beendeclared to be “one of only a few key building blocks in marketing philosophy, theoryand practice” (Babin and Griffin, 1998, p. 128).

Congruent with the literature (Bucklin and Sengupta, 1993; Hennig-Thurau et al.,2002; Li and Dant, 1997; Oliver, 1980), this study defines the concept of satisfaction as theoverall positive attitude towards the organisation, from the perspective of its members.More specifically, it takes into account satisfaction with the quality of service, theresponsiveness of the organisation to problems and inquiries and communicationquality (Claro et al., 2003).

Commitment has also received much attention, not only in RM theory (Vasudevan et al.,2006; Morgan and Hunt, 1994; Siguaw et al., 2003), but also in buyer and organisationalbehaviour literature (Meyer and Allen, 1991; Reichers, 1985). While various definitions of“commitment” exist, conceptualisations appear to range around three themes: an affectivebond, economic loss related to ending a relationship and moral obligation (Meyer andAllen, 1991). The first two perspectives have dominated, with a differentiation betweenbehavioural and attitudinal components broadly accepted (Gundlach et al., 1995; Meyerand Allen, 1991). Broad terminology used in this context has, however, introduced somecomplexity. While the behavioural perspective has been referred to as idiosyncraticinvestments, technical bonds, as well as economical and calculative commitment

APJML23,2

228

(Young and Denize, 1995), the attitudinal perspective has utilised terminology such associal or affective commitment (Meyer and Allen, 1991). While membership commitmenthas been conceptualised as consisting of three components (Gruen et al., 2000), this studyapplies a uni-dimensional conceptualisation in line with much of the literature (Morganand Hunt, 1994; Odekerken-Schroder and Bloemer, 2004), defining membershipcommitment as “the degree of the membership’s psychological attachment to theassociation” (Gruen et al., 2000, p. 37).

HypothesesAccording to Kotler et al. (2009, p. 252), a brand is:

[. . .] a name, term, sign, symbol, or design, or a combination of them which is intended toidentify the goods and services of one seller or group of sellers and to differentiate them fromthose of competitors.

A brand is also regarded as one of the most valuable intangible assets of an organisation(Keller and Lehmann, 2006), thereby playing a significant role in fostering successfulcustomer relationships (Erdem and Swait, 1998; Sweeney and Swait, 2008). Hence, as anidentity of an organisation is changed in a rebranding exercise, the continued credibilityof the brand is determined by the consistency of an organisation’s marketing mixstrategy (Erdem and Swait, 1998) post-rebranding and it is critical for the organisation tosuccessfully communicate the changes to their customers (Muzellec and Lambkin, 2006).Indeed, focused communication has been described as a strategy for fosteringcustomers’ identification with a new brand in a membership context (Bhattacharya et al.,1995).

One of the key questions for a rebranding exercise, according to Stuart and Muzellec(2004), is whether the key stakeholders are positive and cognisant about the change.Hence, by successfully communicating the brand name change and informing themembers about the reasoning behind the change, the organisation has the ability toinfluence members’ attitudes towards the new brand. If members understand thereasoning behind the rebranding attempt, they are likely to have a more positive attitudetowards the change. Furthermore, by means of creating rebranding awareness,the organisation can maintain good contact with its members, allowing the members tobetter identify themselves as an important part of the group (Dutton et al., 1994). This islikely to have positive relational effects. More specifically, we propose that membersperceive the value they receive from their membership to be higher if the organisationcommunicated the change effectively. Consequently, a higher credibility of the brand isachieved, leading also to an increase in customer satisfaction (Sweeny and Swait, 2008).Hence, we hypothesise that:

H1. Rebranding awareness positively influences the members’ attitude towardsrebranding.

H2. Rebranding awareness positively impacts the satisfaction of membership.

H3. Rebranding awareness positively influences membership value.

In the business-to-consumer RM literature, the relationship between an organisation andits customers is influenced by the customers’ relationship with their brands (Bhattacharyaand Sen, 2003; Palmer, 1996). This is consistent with the branding literature in that a brand

Club memberrelationships

229

can be a legitimate relationship partner (Fournier, 1998) and it can also generate positiveemotional bonds between an organisation and its customers (Palmer, 1996). Similarly, intheir study on organisational images and member identification in the workplace,Dutton et al. (1994) suggest that images of an organisation shape the perception membershave about themselves and their association with the organisation. In fact, the moremembers identify with an organisation, the greater their loyalty to the organisation (Adlerand Adler, 1987) which, in turn, is associated with higher perceived value of theirmemberships with the organisation. While these findings have not been adapted to arebranding context, we hypothesise that:

H4. Positive attitude towards rebranding positively influences membership value.

The effect of customer benefits on satisfaction and commitment has also been welldocumented and is well established in the services marketing literature (Bitner, 1990;Dick and Basu, 1994). In the context of this study, satisfaction encompasses variousexperiences members have with the organisation (Liljander and Strandvik, 1995;Stauss et al., 2001). Congruent with the literature, confirming the direct influence ofperceived value on satisfaction and on customer loyalty (McDougall and Levesque, 2000;Sweeney and Swait, 2008; Yang and Peterson, 2004), Stauss et al. (2001) suggest that themore benefits the members utilise, the stronger they will identify with the organisation,resulting in higher levels of satisfaction. Relationship satisfaction, in turn, is a keyprerequisite of customer loyalty and retention (Stauss et al., 2001; Yang and Peterson,2004), as well as customer commitment ( Johnson et al., 2006). Hence, we hypothesise that:

H5. Perceived value of the membership positively influences satisfaction.

H6. Perceived value of the membership positively influences members’commitment.

H7. Satisfaction with the membership positively influences members’commitment.

Following from the previous discussion and the outline of hypotheses, it is evident thatrebranding awareness and a member’s attitude towards the rebranding attemptindirectly impact on commitment, mediated by perceived membership value andsatisfaction. Hence:

H8a. Perceived value of the membership and satisfaction mediate the impact ofrebranding awareness on members’ commitment.

H8b. Perceived value of the membership and satisfaction mediate the impact of theattitude towards rebranding on members’ commitment.

MethodologyIn order to meet the objectives of this study, we identified a member-owned organisationthat had recently engaged in a rebranding effort. The South Australian CanineAssociation, trading as Dogs SA, was chosen as a suitable organisation from which todraw the sample for this study. It has been in existence since 1914 and supportsand controls all affairs of registered breeders, the registration of pedigree dogs and theadministration of canine exhibitions in South Australia (Dogs SA, 2009). Theorganisation also provides a wide range of services to members of the general public

APJML23,2

230

who own dogs via its affiliated breed and dog obedience clubs. With years of decliningmembership and participation rates, low morale within the membership body and a lackof cohesiveness in the membership base, a rebranding to Dogs SA was employed in 2008.Whilst it was envisaged that the new, more modern image would have positiveresonance with the general community, the major objective was to “lift” the perceivedvalue of association membership, leading to improved member satisfaction andincreased commitment to the association.

The research employed a mixed-method design. We first conducted a series of in-depthinterviews with the chief executive officer and one board member of the organisation, andwith existing members of Dogs SA. The exploratory findings from these interviews werethen used to inform the second quantitative stage (an internet-based survey), aimed atgathering data for hypothesis testing. The benefits of web surveys have been welldocumented in the literature (Wiley et al., 2009) and include quick turnaround time(Churchill and Iacobucci, 2005; Tse et al., 1995), low costs (Kent and Lee, 1999; Schaeferand Dillman, 1998), minimal resource requirements (Ilieva et al., 2002; Simsek and Veiga,2001) and rich information (Mehta and Sivadas, 1995; Stanton, 1998).

The organisation at the time of surveying had 2,957 registered members. A randomsample of slightly more than 10 per cent (namely 300) current members, who had a valide-mail address, was selected for the study. A total of 264 usable questionnaires werecompleted, yielding a high response rate of 88 per cent. By comparing early and lateresponses across their characteristics and the constructs in this study, it was ensuredthat non-response bias did not exist (Armstrong and Overton, 1977). Table II showssome descriptive statistics of the respondents in this study. The gender percentages andage groups in the sample are relatively consistent with those in the entire membershipsof Dogs SA. According to the chief executive of the organisation, the male/female ratio is30/70 and approximately 40 per cent of their members are less than 40 years old.

Given the novelty of the research context and constructs, measures for thisexploratory study were adapted from the available literature where suitable anddeveloped based on scales constituting similar constructs as well as in-depth interviews.All constructs were measured on nine-point Likert scales (1 – strongly disagree;9 – strongly agree). As the construct of rebranding awareness has not previously beentested in the literature, the items for this measure were developed specifically for thisstudy. These items reflect the generally agreed notion in the rebranding literature that arebranding exercise can be successful if stakeholders and customers are well-informedof the associated situation and decision (Merrilees and Miller, 2008; Muzellec andLambkin, 2006; Stuart and Muzellec, 2004). As outlined in Table III, it entails threecomponents, namely awareness of the rebranding attempt and an understanding of thereasoning behind the rebranding effort. The final item outlines that the associationinformed the member of the rebranding benefits, which was deemed important as itensured that the awareness resulted from the organisation’s communication efforts.

Gender % Age group (years) % Relationship length (years) %

Male 26.7 ,20 2 ,1 8.4Female 73.3 21-40 31.7 1-3 15.3

41-60 54.9 3-5 14.5.60 11.4 .5 61.8

Table II.Descriptive statistics

of the sample

Club memberrelationships

231

The remaining measures were derived from the existing literature and amended toensure they were suitable for this context (Table III). Since then, attitude towardsrebranding has not previously been measured in the literature, items related to brandattitude were used as a foundation for these items (Chattopadhyay and Basu, 1990;Sirgy et al., 1991). Perceived value was measured in terms of perceived worth and valuefor money, adapted from Berkowitz and Walton (1980) and Lichtenstein and Bearden(1989). To measure commitment, Price and Arnould’s (1999) scale was adapted for thegiven context. Finally, in line with the definition of satisfaction adopted for this paper,we adopted the scale utilised by Claro et al. (2003) and Poppo and Zenger (2002) from theservices management literature, capturing the extent to which members were satisfiedwith the overall service provided by the organisation in terms of quality of service,communication quality and the responsiveness of the organisation to problems andinquiries from its members.

Scale items for each construct were examined by means of a one-factor congenericmeasurement model before a complete measurement model was assessed. All one-factorcongeneric measurement models showed very good fit with all normed chi-squares(x2/df) below 3, all GFI, AGFI and NFI results greater than 0.9 and all RMSEA scoresbelow 0.6 (Byrne, 2001; Diamantopoulos and Siguaw, 2000). A reasonable fit was alsoconfirmed for the overall measurement model (x 2/df ¼ 2.99, GFI ¼ 0.895,AGFI ¼ 0.842, NFI ¼ 0.916 and RMSEA ¼ 0.087). Scale reliability was established bymeans of Cronbach’s alpha (a) and composite reliability (rh) (Cronbach, 1951; Fornell andLarcker, 1981), with all measures achieving the accepted level of 0.7 or greater (Table IV).

Items Factor loadings t-value

Awareness of rebranding attempt 68.98 per cent variances explainedI am aware that SACA has recently been renamed asDogs SA 0.470 7.59I fully understand why SACA had to be rebranded 0.882 16.67The association has informed me of the benefits of therebranding 0.856 16.00Attitude towards rebranding attempt 84.55 per cent variances explainedThe new Dogs SA logo is much better than the oldSACA logo 0.912 18.54The Dogs SA logo will appeal to a wider community ofdog owners 0.877 17.43I really like the Dogs SA name and logo 0.841 13.67Perceived value of membership 76.88 per cent variances explainedThe price of Dogs SA membership is reasonable 0.790 14.82I get value for my membership with Dogs SA 0.937 18.96I utilised a lot of services offered by Dogs SA 0.730 13.25Member commitment 74.67 per cent variances explainedI am very committed to Dogs SA 0.749 12.72I can see myself being a Dogs SA member for a long time 0.896 16.54I will definitely renew my membership with Dogs SA 0.750 13.37Satisfaction 88.41 per cent variances explainedThe quality of service provided by Dogs SA 0.854 17.03Dogs SA’s responsiveness to my problems or inquiries 0.928 19.56The communication I have had with Dogs SA 0.950 20.36

Table III.Constructs and items

APJML23,2

232

Reliability and validity of all constructs were also confirmed. Convergent validity wasdetermined by means of the average variance extracted (rvc(h)), with all values higherthan 0.5 (Diamantopoulos and Siguaw, 2000). The assessment of discriminant validitywas conducted by relating the shared variance (l2) between constructs to the rvc(h) scorecalculated earlier (Rokkan et al., 2003).

Results and discussionData analysis employed AMOS 17, following structural equation modelling principles(Steenkamp and Baumgartner, 2000). Various goodness-of-fit indices (x 2/df ¼ 0.341,p ¼ 0.796, GFI ¼ 0.998, AGFI ¼ 0.992, NFI ¼ 0.998 and RMSEA ¼ 0.000) indicate agood fit between the data and the proposed model. Collectively, the model explains38 per cent of the variance in satisfaction and 44 per cent of the variance in membershipcommitment. The final path model is shown in Figure 1, with all direct and total effectspresented in Table V.

Results of the path analyses provide support for all but one hypothesis. Morespecifically, rebranding awareness instigated by means of proactive communication bythe organisation was hypothesised to positively influence the members’ positive attitudetowards rebranding (H1). This relationship was significant ( p , 0.001), with a high

Figure 1.Path model

0.58***0.41***

0.54***

0.46***

0.27***

0.08

0.14**Awarenessrebranding

Positive attitudetowards

rebranding

Value ofmembership

Membershipcommitment

Satisfaction

Note: Significance at: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01 and ***p < 0.001

Correlations

ConstructNo. ofitems RA AR VM MC S a rh rvc(h)

Highestl2

Rebranding awareness 2 1 0.774 0.793 0.577 0.433Attitude to rebranding 3 0.56 * 1 0.908 0.910 0.769 0.433Value of membership 3 0.45 * 0.32 * 1 0.849 0.862 0.679 0.428Membershipcommitment 3 0.38 * 0.22 * 0.63 * 1 0.827 0.842 0.642 0.428Satisfaction 3 0.39 * 0.24 * 0.60 * 0.55 * 1 0.934 0.936 0.831 0.406

Notes: Significant at: *p , 0.01

rh ¼

Pli

� �2

Pli

� �2

þP

1i

and rvcðhÞ ¼

Pl2

iPl2

iþP

1i

where li is the standardized loading for each observed variable, and 1i is the error variance associatedwith each observed variable (Fornell and Larcker, 1981)

Table IV.Reliability andvalidity scores

Club memberrelationships

233

coefficient of 0.54, supporting H1. InH2, we hypothesised rebranding awareness to alsopositively impact upon the satisfaction of club members. H2 is supported ( p , 0.01,b ¼ 0.14). While only a moderate direct effect emerged, a strong total effect of 0.39indicates awareness of a rebranding attempt as critical for member satisfaction. It wasproposed that both rebranding-related constructs positively influenced membershipvalue (H3 andH4), extending the notion that the brand could be a legitimate relationshippartner (Fournier, 1998) or a means to create the bond between an organisation and itscustomers (Palmer, 1996). However, only one of these hypothesised relationships wasfound to be significant, indicating that the perceived value of the club membershipresults from an awareness of the rebranding attempt ( p , 0.001, b ¼ 0.41), with a totaleffect of 0.46. A positive attitude towards such attempt, however, does not appear tohave a significant influence on value perceptions ( p . 0.05, b ¼ 0.08).

These findings enrich the existing rebranding and RM literature in that theawareness of, rather than the positive inclination towards, the rebranding attempt playsa significant role as a relational tool in managing customer perception and satisfaction(Erdem and Swait, 1998; Sweeney and Swait, 2008). Hence, our findings reaffirmidentification development, via communication of the rebranding exercise, as aneffective member retention strategy (Bhattacharya et al., 1995; Bhattacharya and Sen,2003). In other words, rebranding has the potential to lead the organisation to furthersuccess (Frantz, 2004), if awareness is created amongst the target audience. Beinginformed about the benefits of the rebranding as well as understanding whythe rebranding exercise was undertaken is important for a member as it shows theindividual that s/he is important to the organisation, in turn allowing for thecontinuation and further development of a strong and positive emotional bond withthe organisation (Palmer, 1996). This is particularly important in a membership context,as membership is considered by Bhattacharya et al. (1995, p. 54) “a relationship thatextends a person’s identity by enabling him or her to belong to an organisation”.

As expected, perceived membership value strongly shapes satisfaction withmembership services in H5 (p , 0.001), with a high coefficient value b ¼ 0.63.Furthermore, we found strong support forH6andH7, in which the members’ commitmentto their organisation and membership was significantly and positively determined by theperceived value of their membership ( p , 0.001, b ¼ 0.46) as well as their satisfactionwith membership services ( p , 0.001, b ¼ 0.27). These relationships between value ofmembership, member satisfaction, and member commitment to the club are consistent

Standardizedeffects

Hyp. Independent variable Dependent variable Direct Total Critical ratio

H1 Rebranding awareness Attitude towards rebranding 0.58 0.58 11.56 * *

H2 Rebranding awareness Satisfaction 0.14 0.39 2.54 *

H3 Rebranding awareness Membership value 0.41 0.46 6.094 * *

H4 Attitude towards rebranding Membership value 0.08 0.08 nsH5 Membership value Satisfaction 0.54 0.54 9.80 * *

H6 Membership value Member commitment 0.46 0.61 8.01 * *

H7 Satisfaction Member commitment 0.27 0.27 4.70 * *

Notes: Significance at: *p , 0.05 and * *p , 0.001; ns – non significantTable V.Path model results

APJML23,2

234

with the established cognitive/quality-affective/satisfaction-intention/loyalty frameworkin the marketing literature (Tuu and Olsen, 2009; Olsen, 2002; Szymanski and Henard,2001). We confirm that satisfaction is a significant antecedent of loyalty (Bitner, 1990;Dick and Basu, 1994), represented by the commitment of the members in the clubmembership context.

Finally, a test of the mediating role of membership perceived value and satisfaction(Barron and Kenny, 1986) was conducted. Using a series of simple regressions, bothmembership value and satisfaction impact membership commitment ( p , 0.001), withstandardized beta coefficients of 0.628 (t ¼ 13.00) and 0.551 (t ¼ 10.66), respectively.Furthermore, a significant association between rebranding awareness and commitmentwas established ( p , 0.001, b ¼ 0.375, t ¼ 6.516). When including the independent andboth mediating variables in a third equation, perceived membership value ( p , 0.001,b ¼ 0.437, t ¼ 7.214) and satisfaction ( p , 0.001, b ¼ 0.257, t ¼ 4.377) remainsignificant while rebranding awareness shows a positive yet insignificant associationwith commitment ( p ¼ 0.124 and b ¼ 0.081). Membership value and satisfaction thusappear to fully mediate the effect of rebranding awareness on commitment,confirming H8a. It should be noted, however, that only the combination of valueperceptions and satisfaction fully mediate the relationship between rebrandingawareness and commitment. If tested individually with the independent variable,rebranding awareness retains a significant impact, indicating a partial mediating effect.Full mediation of satisfaction and value perceptions also emerges in relation to theattitude towards rebranding. While a simple regression indicates a significant linkbetween this independent variable and membership commitment ( p , 0.001,b ¼ 0.219,t ¼ 3.624), significance cannot be confirmed once mediators are introduced into theregression. H8b is thus also confirmed. Full mediation remains even if mediators aretested individually with the independent variable.

Managerial implicationsMembers, as with any other types of customers, must never be taken for granted(Sweeney and Swait, 2008). An important principle of successful RM is to get thecustomers “closer” to the organisation (Gruen et al., 2000). Hence, any change within anorganisation must be clearly communicated to its members to encourage “buy in” andeven advocacy. When a rebranding strategy is employed, the organisation must be ableto provide credible and positive reasons for the change to its members (Merrileesand Miller, 2008) and keep them up to date with the process of building the new identity(Kaikati and Kaikati, 2003), allowing them to renew their identification with theorganisation. Such identification will result in stronger member commitment andloyalty (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2003).

In the current climate of “time poor” consumers, stakeholders in member-ownedorganisation must be strongly motivated and encouraged to maintain and enhance theircommitment to their organisation to ensure its long-term survival. This may take variousforms such as financial support, provision of expertise or participation on committees andprojects and without this “free” labour they would be forced to reduce the services theyprovide to their members and the community at large. Furthermore, as many of thesespecial-interest communities have little capital to devote to marketing activities, in order topromote growth in membership numbers, existing members must be strong advocates forthe organisation, actively voicing positive word-of-mouth endorsements.

Club memberrelationships

235

This research has provided managers of member-owned organisations withimportant insight into the potential positive outcomes achievable through a rebrandingexercise. A rebranding strategy could be an effective strategy to “rejuvenate” andorganisation and provide a basis for a membership drive or recruitment for increasedvolunteering amongst the membership base. In order to achieve rebranding success,however, extensive communication with the membership base emerged as critical,creating awareness in the membership cohort of the rebranding attempt and thereasoning behind it. Hence, this research makes a significant and practical contributionto member-based organisations and the literature respective to branding and RM.

Conclusion, limitations and future researchMuch of the existing, still sparse, literature related to rebranding is confined tomarketing communications outcomes and strategies. However, there is growing intereston the effects of this strategy on specific stakeholders in organisation, such as themembers of a member-owned entity. Growing reliance is being placed on these types ofcommunities and/or special-interest organisations, largely run by volunteers andnot-for-profit, to provide a range of services and satisfy social needs in our communities.However, participation rates are dropping in many such organisations and if they are toremain viable, existing members must be retained and their respective commitmentsincreased, while, at the same time, new members must be recruited.

This research brought together and enriched the literature domains of (re-)brandingand RM. We extended the theory on corporate rebranding as suggested by Merrilees andMiller (2008) and, in part, responded to Keller and Lehmann’s (2006) call for researchrelated to the cultivation of customer relationships with brands. We also reaffirmed thecorporate rebranding theory by highlighting a linkage between the high level ofawareness of rebranding decisions and its social impact on the perception of stakeholders.Specifically, this study illustrated that a rebranding exercise can be used to enhance themembers’ perceptions of, and relationship with, the brand. Confirming existing brandingliterature (Sweeney and Swait, 2008), rebranding efforts may provide positive outcomes interms of increased membership value and satisfaction, leading to greater commitment tothe organisation. Hence, this study suggests that a well-communicated rebrandingattempt of member-owned organisations has significant internal benefits. These benefitsare likely to lead to further positive external outcomes, considering that research involvingother interest-based communities has linked member satisfaction and commitmentword-of-mouth recommendations (Arnett et al., 2003; Michalski and Helmig, 2008).

Several limitations are associated with this research. Despite the high response rate of88 per cent, the study was conducted on a relatively small sample size (representingapproximately 10 per cent of the membership overall). In addition, we empirically testedour conceptual model only in the context of a single canine association and a singlerebranding attempt. A replication of this study in other contexts should thus beundertaken to confirm and validate our findings for other organisations. Anotherlimitation relates to the fact that only three outcome measures were included.This limitation can be overcome if future research investigates other consequences ofrebranding (e.g. organisational reputation and brand equity), taking into account otherdeterminants of membership commitment such as quality of communication, perceivedbenefits, trust, knowledge and quality of leadership. Lastly, we only considered

APJML23,2

236

rebranding awareness, rebranding attitude and perceived membership value asdeterminants of membership satisfaction, which is a complex phenomenon.

As an additional research direction, an evaluation of the conceptual model acrossdifferent groups of members, such as satisfied versus unsatisfied ones, or those with shortversus long-term membership histories, may be suggested. As individuals have differentexpectations and experiences in their associations with the club and its brand (Balmer andGreyser, 2006), comparisons of different consumer groups would provide furtherinteresting insights and opportunities to develop detailed implications for practice.

References

Aaker, D.A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand Name,The Free Press, New York, NY.

Aaker, D.A. (1996), Building Strong Brands, The Free Press, New York, NY.

Aaker, J.L. (1997), “Dimensions of brand personality”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34No. 3, pp. 347-56.

Adler, P. and Adler, P.A. (1987), “Role conflict and identity salience: college athletics and theacademic role”, Social Science Journal, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 443-55.

Aijo, T.S. (1996), “The theoretical and philosophical underpinnings of relationship marketing:environmental factors behind the changing marketing paradigm”, European Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 8-18.

Anderson, J.C. (1998), “Business marketing: understand what customers value”, HarvardBusiness Review, Vol. 76 No. 6, pp. 53-65.

Armstrong, J.S. and Overton, T.S. (1977), “Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys”, Journalof Marketing Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 396-402.

Arnett, D.B., German, S.D. and Hunt, S.D. (2003), “The identity salience model of relationshipmarketing success: the case of nonprofit marketing”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 67 No. 2,pp. 89-105.

Babin, B.J. and Griffin, M. (1998), “The nature of satisfaction: an updated examination andanalysis”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 127-36.

Balmer, J.M.T. (2001), “Corporate identify, corporate branding and corporate marketing: seeingthrough the fog”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 Nos 3/4, pp. 248-91.

Balmer, J.M.T. and Greyser, S.A. (2006), “Corporate marketing: integrating corporate identity,corporate branding, corporate communications, corporate image and corporatereputation”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 40 Nos 7/8, pp. 730-41.

Barron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator-mediator variable distinction in socialpsychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-82.

Berkowitz, E.M. and Walton, J.R. (1980), “Contextual influences on consumer price responses:an experimental analysis”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 349-58.

Bhattacharya, C.B. (1998), “When customers are members: customer retention in paid membershipcontexts”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sciences, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 31-44.

Bhattacharya, C.B. and Sen, S. (2003), “Consumer-company identification: a framework forunderstanding consumers’ relationships with companies”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 67No. 2, pp. 76-88.

Club memberrelationships

237

Bhattacharya, C.B., Rao, H. and Glynn, M.A. (1995), “Understanding the bond of identification:an investigation of its correlates among art museum members”, Journal of Marketing,No. 4, pp. 46-57.

Bitner, M.J. (1990), “Evaluating service encounters: the effects of physical surroundings andemployee responses”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 69-82.

Bucklin, L.P. and Sengupta, S. (1993), “Organizing successful co-marketing alliances”, Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 32-46.

Byrne, B. (2001), Structural Equation Modelling with AMOS, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,Mahwah, NJ.

Chattopadhyay, A. and Basu, K. (1990), “Humour in advertising: the moderating role of priorbrand evaluation”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 466-76.

Churchill, G.A. and Iacobucci, D. (2005), Marketing Research: Methodological Foundations,9th ed., Thomson/South-Western, Mason, OH.

Churchill, G.A. Jr and Suprenant, C. (1982), “An investigation into the determinants of customersatisfaction”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 491-504.

Claro, D.P., Hagelaar, G. and Omta, O. (2003), “The determinants of relational governance andperformance: how to manage business relationships?”, Industrial Marketing Management,Vol. 32 No. 8, pp. 703-16.

Cronbach, L.J. (1951), “Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests”, Psychometrika,Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 297-334.

Diamantopoulos, A. and Siguaw, J.A. (2000), Introducing LISREL: A Guide for the Uninitiated,Sage, London.

Dick, A.S. and Basu, K. (1994), “Customer loyalty: toward an integrated conceptual framework”,Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 99-113.

Dogs SA (2009), “About Dogs SA”, available at: www.dogssa.com.au (accessed 1 June 2009).

Dutton, J.E., Dukerich, J.M. and Harquail, C.V. (1994), “Organizational images and memberidentification”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 239-63.

Egan, J. (2001), Relationship Marketing: Exploring Relational Strategies in Marketing, Pearson,Harlow.

Eggert, A. and Ulaga, W. (2002), “Customer perceived value: a substitute for satisfaction inbusiness markets?”, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 17 Nos 2/3, pp. 107-18.

Erdem, T. and Swait, J. (1998), “Brand equity as a signalling phenomenon”, Journal of ConsumerPsychology, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 131-57.

Flint, D.J., Woodruff, R.B. and Gardial, S.F. (2002), “Exploring the phenomenon of customers’desired value change in a business-to-business context”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 66No. 4, pp. 102-17.

Ford, D. and McDowell, R. (1999), “Managing business relationships by analysing the effects andvalue of different actions”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 429-42.

Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservablevariables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.

Fournier, S.M. (1998), “Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in consumerresearch”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 343-73.

Frantz, S. (2004), “Rebranding to recruit”, Nature Reviews, Vol. 3, pp. 1065-8.

Garbarino, E. and Johnson, M.S. (1999), “The different roles of satisfaction, trust, andcommitment in customer relationships”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63 No. 2, pp. 70-87.

APJML23,2

238

Getz, K., Kremidas, J. and Sergeant, E. (2008), “Everyday heroes’ campaign captures the public”,Applied Clinical Trials, June, pp. 82-6.

Geyskens, I. and Steenkamp, J.-B.E.M. (2000), “Economic and social satisfaction: measurement andrelevance to marketing channel relationships”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 76 No. 1, pp. 11-32.

Gounaris, S.P. (2005), “Trust and commitment influences on customer retention: insights frombusiness-to-business services”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 126-40.

Gruen, T.W., Summers, J.O. and Acito, F. (2000), “Relationship marketing activities, commitment,and membership behaviours in professional associations”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 64No. 3, pp. 34-49.

Gundlach, G.T., Achrol, R.S. and Mentzer, J.T. (1995), “The structure of commitmentin exchange”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 59 No. 1, pp. 78-92.

Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K.P. and Gremler, D.D. (2002), “Understanding relationshipmarketing outcomes: an integration of relational benefits and relationship quality”,Journal of Service Research, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 230-47.

Ilieva, J., Baron, S. and Healey, N.M. (2002), “Online survey in marketing research: pros andcons”, International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 361-76.

Johnson, M.D., Herrman, A. and Huber, F. (2006), “The evolution of loyalty intentions”, Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 70 No. 2, pp. 122-32.

Kaikati, J.G. (2003), “Lessons from Accenture’s 3Rs: rebranding, restructuring andrepositioning”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 12 Nos 6/7, pp. 477-90.

Kaikati, J.G. and Kaikati, A.M. (2003), “A rose by another name: rebranding campaigns thatwork”, Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 17-23.

Katz, E. and Rosenberg, J. (2005), “An economic interpretation of institutional volunteering”,European Journal of Political Economics, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 429-43.

Kay, M.J. (2006), “Strong brands and corporate brands”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 40Nos 7/8, pp. 742-60.

Keith, J.E., Lee, D.-J. and Lee, R. (2004), “The effect of relational exchange between the serviceprovider and the customer on the customer’s perception of value”, Journal of RelationshipMarketing, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 3-34.

Keller, K.L. and Lehmann, D.R. (2006), “Brands and branding: research findings and futurepriorities”, Marketing Science, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 740-59.

Kent, R. and Lee, M. (1999), “Using the internet for market research: a study of private trading onthe internet”, Journal of the Market Research Society, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 377-85.

Koh, J. and Kim, Y.-G. (2003), “Sense of virtual community: a conceptual framework andempirical validation”, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 75-93.

Koh, J., Kim, Y.G., Brian, B. and Bock, G.W. (2007), “Encouraging participation in virtualcommunities”, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 69-73.

Kotler, P., Kotler, K.L. and Burton, S. (2009), Marketing Management, 13th ed., Pearson,Frenchs Forest.

Lam, S.Y., Shankar, V., Erramilli, M.K. and Murthy, B. (2004), “Customer value, satisfaction,loyalty, and switching costs: an illustration from a business-to-business service context”,Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 293-311.

Lapierre, J. (1997), “What does value mean in business-to-business professional services?”,International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 8 No. 5, pp. 377-97.

Li, Z.G. and Dant, R.P. (1997), “An exploratory study of exclusive dealing in channelrelationships”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 201-13.

Club memberrelationships

239

Lichtenstein, D.R. and Bearden, W.O. (1989), “Contextual influences on perceptions ofmerchant-supplied reference prices”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 55-66.

Liljander, V. and Strandvik, T. (1995), “The nature of customer relationship in services”,in Swartz, T.A., Bowen, D.E. and Brown, S.W. (Eds), Advances in Services Marketing andManagement, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 141-67.

Lindgreen, A. and Wynstra, F. (2005), “Value in business markets: what do we know? Where arewe going?”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 34 No. 7, pp. 732-48.

McAlexander, J.H., Schouten, J.W. and Koenig, H.F. (2002), “Building brand community”, Journalof Marketing, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 38-54.

McDougall, G.H.G. and Levesque, T. (2000), “Customer satisfaction with services: puttingperceived value into the equation”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 392-410.

Mehta, R. and Sivadas, E. (1995), “Comparing responses rates and response content in mail versuselectronic mail surveys”, Journal of the Market Research Society, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 429-39.

Merrilees, B. (2005), “Radical brand evolution: a case-based framework”, Journal of AdvertisingResearch, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 201-10.

Merrilees, B. and Miller, D. (2008), “Principles of corporate rebranding”, European Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 42 Nos 5/6, pp. 537-52.

Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1991), “A three-component conceptualization of organizationalcommitment”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 61-89.

Michalski, S. and Helmig, B. (2008), “What do we know about the identity salience model ofrelationship marketing success? A review of the literature”, Journal of RelationshipMarketing, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 45-63.

Morgan, R.M. and Hunt, S.D. (1994), “The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing”,Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 20-38.

Muniz, A.M. and O’Guinn, T.C. (2001), “Brand community”, Journal of Consumer Research,Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 412-32.

Murphy, B. and Wang, R. (2006), “An evaluation of stakeholder relationship marketing in China”,Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 7-19.

Muzellec, L. and Lambkin, M. (2006), “Corporate rebranding: destroying, transferring or creatingbrand equity?”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 40 Nos 7/8, pp. 803-24.

Muzellec, L., Doogan, M. and Lambkin, M. (2003), “Corporate rebranding: an exploratory review”,Irish Marketing Review, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 31-40.

Nathan, V. and Webster, C. (2009), “Relationship marketing in membership associations:qualitative findings from a wine club”, Proceedings of the 38th European MarketingAcademy Conference, Nantes, France, 26-29 May.

Odekerken-Schroder, G. and Bloemer, J. (2004), “Constraints and dedication as drivers forrelationship commitment: an empirical study in a health-care context”, Journal ofRelationship Marketing, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 35-52.

Oliver, R.L. (1980), “A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfactiondecisions”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 460-9.

Olsen, S.O. (2002), “Comparative evaluation and the relationship between quality, satisfaction, andrepurchase loyalty”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 240-9.

Palmatier, R.W., Dant, R.P., Grewal, D. and Evans, K.R. (2006), “Factors influencing the effectivenessof relationship marketing: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 70 No. 4, pp. 136-53.

Palmer, A. (1996), “Integrating brand development and relationship marketing”, Journal ofRetailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 251-7.

APJML23,2

240

Palmer, A. (2002), “The evolution of an idea: an environmental explanation of relationshipmarketing”, Journal of Relationship Marketing, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 79-94.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1988), “SERVQUAL: multiple-item scale formeasuring consumer perceptions of service quality”, Journal ofRetailing, Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 12-40.

Parvatiyar, F.A. and Sheth, J.N. (2000), “The domain and conceptual foundations of relationshipmarketing”, in Sheth, J.N. and Parvatiyar, F.A. (Eds), Handbook of Relationship Marketing,Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 3-38.

Patterson, P.G. and Spreng, R.A. (1997), “Modelling the relationship between perceived value,satisfaction and repurchase intentions in a business-to-business services context:an empirical examination”, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 8No. 5, pp. 414-34.

Payne, A. and Holt, S. (1999), “A review of the ‘value’ literature and implications for relationshipmarketing”, Australasian Marketing Journal, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 41-51.

Payne, A. and Holt, S. (2001), “Diagnosing customer value creation in relationship marketing”,British Journal of Management, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 159-82.

Poppo, L. and Zenger, T. (2002), “Do formal contracts and relational governance function assubstitutes or complements?”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 23 No. 8, pp. 707-25.

Price, L.L. and Arnould, E.J. (1999), “Commercial friendships: service provider-clientrelationships in context”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63 No. 4, pp. 38-56.

Ravald, A. and Gronroos, C. (1996), “The value concept and relationship marketing”, EuropeanJournal of Marketing, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 19-30.

Reichers, A.E. (1985), “A review and reconceptualization of organizational commitment”,Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 465-76.

Rokkan, A.I., Heide, J.B. and Wathne, K. (2003), “Specific investments in marketingrelationships”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 210-24.

Schaefer, D.R. and Dillman, D.A. (1998), “Development of a standard email methodology: resultsof an experiment”, Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 62 No. 3, pp. 378-97.

Schouten, J.W. and McAlexander, J.H. (1995), “Subcultures of consumption: an ethnography ofthe new bikers”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 43-61.

Sheth, J.N. and Parvatiyar, A. (1995), “The evolution of relationship marketing”, InternationalBusiness Review, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 397-418.

Siguaw, J.A., Bakes, T.L. and Simpson, P.M. (2003), “Preliminary evidence on the composition ofrelational exchange and its outcomes: the distributor perspective”, Journal of BusinessResearch, Vol. 56 No. 4, pp. 311-22.

Simsek, Z. and Veiga, J.F. (2001), “A primer on internet organizational surveys”, OrganizationalResearch Methods, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 218-35.

Sirgy, M.J., Johar, J.D., Samli, A.C. and Claiborne, C.B. (1991), “Self-congruity versus functionalcongruity: predictors of consumer behaviour”, Journal of the Academy of MarketingScience, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 363-75.

Stanton, J.M. (1998), “An empirical assessment of data collection using the internet”, PersonnelPsychology, Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 709-25.

Stauss, B., Chojnacki, K., Decker, A. and Hoffmann, F. (2001), “Retention effects of a customerclub”, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 7-19.

Steenkamp, J.-B.E.M. and Baumgartner, H. (2000), “On the use of structural equation models formarketing modelling”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 17 Nos 2/3,pp. 195-202.

Club memberrelationships

241

Stuart, H. and Muzellec, L. (2004), “Corporate makeovers: can a hyena be rebranded?”, Journal ofBrand Management, Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 472-82.

Sweeney, J.C. (2001), “Inter-relationships between relationship marketing, branding and services:implications”, in Chetty, S. and Collins, B. (Eds), Proceedings of the Australian and NewZealand Marketing Academy Conference, Massey University, Auckland.

Sweeney, J.C. and Swait, J. (2008), “The effects of brand credibility on customer loyalty”, Journalof Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 179-93.

Szymanski, D.M. and Henard, D.H. (2001), “Customer satisfaction: a meta-analysis of theempirical evidence”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 16-35.

Tse, A.C.B., Tse, K.C., Yin, C.H., Ting, C.B., Yi, K.W., Yee, K.P. and Hong, W.C. (1995),“Comparing two methods of sending out questionnaires: e-mail versus mail”, Journal of theMarket Research Society, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 441-6.

Tuu, H.H. and Olsen, S.O. (2009), “Food risk and knowledge in the satisfaction-repurchase loyaltyrelationship”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 521-36.

Varey, R.J., Baxter, R., Brodie, R.J., Brookes, R.W., Plewa, C. and Quester, P.G. (2005),“Buyer-seller relationships: Australasian research and reflections”, Journal of CustomerBehaviour, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 127-46.

Vasudevan, H., Gaur, S.S. and Shinde, R.K. (2006), “Relational switching costs, satisfaction andcommitment: a study in the Indian manufacturing context”, Asia Pacific Journal ofMarketing and Logistics, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 342-53.

Wann, D.L. and Branscombe, N.R. (1990), “Die-hard and fair weather fans: effect of identificationon BIRGing and CORPFing tendencies”, Journal of Sports and Social Issues, Vol. 14 No. 2,pp. 103-17.

Wiley, J.B., Han, V., Albaum, G. and Thirkell, P. (2009), “Selecting techniques for use in aninternet survey”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 455-74.

Yang, Z. and Peterson, R.T. (2004), “Customer perceived value, satisfaction, and loyalty: the roleof switching costs”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 10, pp. 799-822.

Young, L. and Denize, S. (1995), “A concept of commitment: alternative views of relationalcontinuity in business service relationships”, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing,Vol. 10 No. 5, pp. 22-37.

Zeithaml, V.A. (1988), “Consumer perception of price, quality and value: a mean-end model andsynthesis of evidence”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 22-32.

Further reading

Varey, R.J. and Ballantyne, D. (2005), “Relationship marketing and the challenge of dialogicalinteraction”, Journal of Relationship Marketing, Vol. 4 Nos 3/4, pp. 11-28.

Corresponding authorCarolin Plewa can be contacted at: carolin.plewa@adelaide.edu.au

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

APJML23,2

242