Emerging Brand Meanings in Wearable Sports Technology: A Case Study on Suunto Sports Watches

  • Hilla Karamaki
  • Sonja Lahtinen
  • Pekka Tuominen
Conference paper
Part of the Eurasian Studies in Business and Economics book series (EBES, volume 10/1)


The purpose of this study is to describe and analyse emerging brand meanings in the context of wearable sports technology. The theoretical framework is built on the concept of wearable sports technology and the contemporary literature on brand meanings. This empirical research is based on a case study of the Suunto Ambit3 Sport Sapphire watch. A qualitative projective ZMET-method is applied to generate data from ten interviews with Finnish female customers who own the Suunto Ambit3 Sport Sapphire watch. Eight themes are identified that incorporate several interconnected sub-meanings: well-being, connecting with nature, setting and achieving goals, expressing style, appreciating technological advancement, relying on professionalism, testing one’s limits, and embracing special experiences.


Brand Meanings Wearable Sports Technology ZMET-method 


  1. Arnould, E. (2007). Should consumer citizens escape the market? The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 611(1), 96–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Auty, S., & Elliott, R. (1998). Fashion involvement, self-monitoring and the meaning of brands. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 7(2), 109–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Batey, M. (2008). Brand meaning. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Bouchet, P., Hillariet, D., & Bodet, G. (2013). Sport brands. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Catchings-Castello, G. (2000). The ZMET alternative. Marketing Research, 12(2), 6–12.Google Scholar
  6. Chard, C. (2013). Understanding the brand meaning of the Canadian interuniversity sport hockey league: An insurance policy if all else fails! Sport in Society, 16(3), 327–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Christensen, G., & Olson, J. (2002). Mapping consumers’ mental models with ZMET. Psychology and Marketing, 19(6), 477–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Denzin, N. (1994). The art and politics of interpretation. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 500–515). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. English, B., & Solomon, M. (1995). To be and not to be: Lifestyle imagery, reference groups, and the clustering of America. Journal of Advertising, 24(1), 13–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eriksson, P., & Kovalainen, A. (2016). Qualitative methods in business research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  11. Escalas, J., & Bettman, J. (2005). Self-construal, reference groups and brand meaning. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(6), 378–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. First, I. (2009). Brand meaning and its creation in a cross-cultural context. In Academic dissertation. St. Gallen: Publications of University of St. Gallen.Google Scholar
  13. Gao, Y., Li, H., & Luo, Y. (2015). An empirical study of wearable technology acceptance in healthcare. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 115(9), 1704–1723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gummesson, E. (2005). Qualitative research in marketing. A road-map for a wilderness of complexity and unpredictability. European Journal of Marketing, 39(3/4), 309–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hamann, D., Williams, R., & Omar, M. (2007). Branding strategy and consumer high technology product. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 16(2), 98–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Han, Y., Nunes, J., & Dréze, X. (2010). Signaling status with luxury goods: The role of brand prominence. Journal of Marketing, 74(4), 15–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Karamaki, H., Lahtinen, S., & Tuominen, P. (2018). Building a conceptual model for brand meanings in wearable sports technology. In M. H. Bilgin, H. Danis, E. Demir, & U. Can (Eds.), Eurasian business perspectives, Eurasian studies in business and economics (Vol. 8/1, pp. 233–243). Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kleine, R., & Kleine, S. (2000). Consumption and self-schema changes throughout the identity project life cycle. Advances in Consumer Research, 27(1), 279–285.Google Scholar
  19. Ladik, D., & Stewart, D. (2008). The contribution continuum. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(2), 157–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ligas, M., & Cotte, J. (1999). The process of negotiating brand meaning. Advances in Consumer Research, 26(1), 609–614.Google Scholar
  21. Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Malar, L., Krohmer, H., Hoyer, W. D., & Nyffenegger, B. (2011). Emotional brand attachment and brand personality: The relative importance of the actual and the ideal self. Journal of Marketing, 75(4), 35–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McCann, J. (2009). End-user based design of innovative smart clothing. In J. McCann & D. Bryson (Eds.), Smart clothes and wearable technology (pp. 4–24). Boca Raton: CRC Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McInnis, D., Whan Park, C., & Priester, J. (2014). Handbook of brand relationships. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Moisander, J., & Valtonen, A. (2006). Qualitative marketing research: A cultural approach. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Muniz, A. (1997). Consumers and brand meaning: Brands, the self and others. Advances in Consumer Research, 24(1), 308–310.Google Scholar
  27. Muniz, A., & O’Guinn, C. (2001). Brand community. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(4), 412–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Silverman, D. (2005). Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  29. Sugai, P. (2005). Mapping the mind of the mobile consumer across borders. An application of the Zaltman metaphor elicitation technique. International Marketing Review, 22(6), 641–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Suunto. (2016). Suunto sports watches. Accessed December 2, 2016, from
  31. Suunto. (2017). Suunto Ambit3 Sport Sapphire. Accessed February 2, 2017, from
  32. Thompson, C. (2004). Marketplace mythology and discourses of power. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), 162–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Vannoy, S. A., & Palvia, P. (2010). The social influence model of technology adoption. Communications of the ACM, 53(6), 149–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Venkatesh, V., Thong, J., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and user of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wiedmann, K. P., Hennigs, N., & Siebels, A. (2007). Measuring consumers’ luxury value perception: A cross-cultural framework. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 11(7), 1–21.Google Scholar
  36. Yin, R. (2013). Case study research. Design and methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  37. Zaltman, G. (1997). Rethinking market research: Putting people back in. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(4), 424–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zaltman, G., & Coulter, R. (1995). Seeing the voice of the customer: Metaphor-based advertising research. Journal of Advertising Research, 35(4), 35–51.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hilla Karamaki
    • 1
  • Sonja Lahtinen
    • 1
  • Pekka Tuominen
    • 1
  1. 1.University of TampereTampereFinland

Personalised recommendations