Search results

This paper aims to focus on the phenomena of negative brand relationships and emotions to evidence how such relationships transpose into the willingness to participate in collective actions in anti-brand communities.

An online survey was carried out, targeting Facebook anti-brand communities, dedicated to sharing negativity toward technology products. A total of 300 members of these communities participated in the study.

The study shows that the two dimensions of negative brand relationship (negative emotional connection and two-way communication) lead to community participation in anti-brand communities, through the mediating role of social approval and oppositional loyalty. Anti-brand community growth is supported by members’ intentions to recommend the group and is the result of their participation.

The study’s focus on technology brands calls for further research on other brand types and categories and the inclusion of other independent variables should be considered to extend understanding of collective negativity in anti-brand communities.

The paper provides insight to brand managers on the ways to manage negativity around their brand online and understand the role that brand communities play in this process.

The paper proposes the first integrative view of brand negativity, encompassing emotions and behaviors of consumers as individuals and as members of a collective, which allows the understanding of the dynamics of anti-branding and highlights the mechanisms that facilitate anti-brand community expansion.

This paper aims to provide a typology of perceived risk in the context of consumer brand resistance and thus answers the following question: how do consumers perceive the risk they take when resisting brands?

Two qualitative methods were used. In-depth interviews were carried out with 15 consumers who resist brands. An ethnography was carried out for ten months in an international pro-environmental NGO.

This multiple qualitative method design led to the identification of four types of risks taken by consumers. The four categories of perceived risks identified are performance (lack of suitable alternatives for the brand), social issues (stigma and exclusion), legal reasons (legal proceedings) or physical considerations (violation of physical integrity). These risks are located along a continuum of resistance intensity. Resistance intensity levels are avoidance, offline word-of-mouth, online word-of-mouth, boycott, activism and finally extreme acts.

This study provides a framework that integrates perceived risks within the context of brand resistance. The paper highlights extreme acts of resistance and questions the limits of such behaviors.

The purpose of this paper is to propose a research model to identify the key determinants and examine their impact towards online pro-brand and anti-brand community citizenship behaviours (CCBs).

A survey based on the research model is used to collect empirical data from 260 and 200 members of online pro-brand communities (OBCs) and online anti-brand communities (OABCs), respectively. A two-stage approach employing fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis and artificial neural network (ANN) is first applied to uncover new observations.

Moral identity and positive brand emotion (BE) are the two most influential factors driving both online pro-brand and anti-brand CCBs. A higher level of internalisation might be required to exhibit online anti-brand CCB as opposed to online pro-brand CCB. This contradicts the current understanding that anti-brand behaviours are less morally restricted given the virtuality and anonymity of online communities. OABC members may need to better justify themselves internally to overcome positive BE when exercising anti-brand action. Also, brand identification, brand dis-identification and BE would be used to identify two types of OABC members.

The effect of motives other than pro-social remains unclear on online pro-brand and anti-brand CCBs.

This is the first paper to develop two new dimensions which provide a more complete definition of CCB. Also, some new observations are uncovered by comparing the effect of different key determinants on online pro-brand CCB against that of online anti-brand CCB. The research model can be used to define and improve member (or brand) engagement which would enhance the management of OBCs and OABCs.

This study aims to build on the notion of brand evangelism developed by Becerra and Badrinarayanan (2013) by examining how brand relationship variables regarding one brand (i.e. brand loyalty, brand community identification and self-brand connection) influence oppositional referrals to a rival brand (i.e. desire to harm and trash-talking) in the high definition (HD) videogame console industry.

A survey of online communities devoted to video gaming was conducted using a sample of 809 respondents, all owners of either a PlayStation or an Xbox.

The results show that the desire to harm the rival brand is strongly and positively associated to participation in trash-talking. Brand loyalty is connected to both dimensions of oppositional brand referrals. Consumers’ connection with the brand affects trash-talking only indirectly through the desire to harm. No association is found between identification with the brand community and oppositional brand referrals.

This study is the first to demonstrate the mechanism linking brand relationship variables regarding a focal brand with consumers’ disparagement of a rival brand, showing that a desire to harm plays a central role. Just as the desire for retaliation drives negative word-of-mouth in the context of an unsatisfactory experience with a brand (Grégoire and Fisher, 2006), the desire to harm drives trash-talking against a rival brand by brand evangelists. This study improves our understanding of the relationships consumers build with their preferred brands and how this relationship may influence their rejection of competing brands with which they do not have direct experience.

The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationships between brand attachment and consumers’ positive and negative behaviours. Furthermore, this study examines the moderating effects of attachment styles on these relationships.

The study is based on a survey of 432 respondents, and the data are analysed using the structural equation modelling approach.

This study empirically supports that brand attachment and attachment styles (i.e. anxiety attachment and avoidance attachment) are distinct. Brand attachment influences consumers’ not only positive behaviour (i.e. brand loyalty) but also negative behaviours, such as trash-talking, schadenfreude and anti-brand actions. The findings of the study suggest that only avoidance attachment style moderates the relationships between brand attachment and these consumer behaviours. The link between brand attachment and brand loyalty is attenuated for high-attachment-avoidance consumers. In contrast, the links between brand attachment and trash-talking, schadenfreude and anti-brand actions are strengthened.

This study assists marketing managers in understanding that a strong brand attachment may result in negative behaviours that can harm a company’s brand image. Thus, building a strong relationship with consumers will not always be beneficial. Companies should be aware of the consequences of building relationships with consumers who have a high level of attachment anxiety and/or avoidance.

This paper highlights that brand attachment not only influences brand loyalty behaviour but also three negative behaviours: trash-talking, schadenfreude and anti-brand actions. Moreover, the links between brand attachment and negative behaviours are strengthened when consumers have a high level of attachment avoidance.

This study aims to discuss the antecedent roles that corporate social responsibility and consumer complaints perform in consumer brand hate and anti-branding activities.

The reasons for the existence of anti-brand websites and how they operate in dynamically changing digital platforms are discussed with a literature review and data analysis.

The findings of this study reveal that there is a direct link between consumer dissatisfaction and brand hate, and that there is a partially mediating impact by customer dissatisfaction and corporate social responsibility on consumer brand hate.

This study is the first-of-its-kind investigation of the relationships that might exist among corporate social responsibility, consumer complaints and dissatisfaction, consumer anti-branding and brand hate with macro-level indicators. The study is the first of its kind to test macro-level brand hate measures with a set of longitudinal analyses.

This paper aims to the literature on negative consumer-brand relationships by advancing knowledge on the key triggers of brand hate of global and prominent brands. It investigates for the first time the role of brand in triggering brand hate, as well as behavioral and emotional brand hate outcomes, i.e. willingness to punish and negative brand engagement. Additionally, it explores the impact of product ownership and previous love feelings in the formation of brand hate.

The data collection was conducted on two Apple anti-brand communities after the given consent of its administrators. Data analysis was performed using structural equation modeling.

The paper suggests that brand hate is a construct with four first-order formative triggers (symbolic incongruity, ideological incompatibility, negative past experience and brand inauthenticity). It also demonstrates that brand hate is a dichotomous concept that comprises negative emotional dimensions (i.e. negative brand engagement) and behavioral dimensions (i.e. brand aversion, negative word-of-mouth and willingness to punish brands). Finally, it shows how brand hate differs among users vs non-users and passionate vs non-passionate consumers of Apple.

This paper contributes to the literature on negative consumer-brand relationships by advancing knowledge on the key triggers and outcomes of brand hate of global and prominent brands. More importantly, it demonstrates empirically that brand hate does not occur at a specific point of time and may result in transient hatred motivated by emotion-eliciting events (e.g. using a product) or as a long-term consumer-brand relationship that changed from love to hatred.

Attachment theory is emerging as an important theoretical foundation in marketing because of the relational nature of consumption, but little guidance exists as to which of many attachment style measures is most suitable for use by researchers. As a result, many measures are being used with little justification, and frequently, these scales are being adapted due to poor measurement fit, length or wording unrelated to the focal attachment figure. This paper aims to evaluate seven existing attachment style measures and provides recommendations regarding which measure is the most suitable for assessing the impact of chronic attachment styles on marketing outcomes.

A literature review identified seven measures of attachment style for analysis. Two studies examine the psychometric properties, susceptibility to response bias and predictive validity of the seven measures (Study 1n = 325 and Study 2n = 205).

Among the seven scales evaluated, the Johnson et al. (2012) [Johnson, Whelan, and Thomson (JWT)] measure exhibited the best psychometric properties and predictive validity for general (i.e. not relationship-specific) attachment styles. In addition, two relationship-specific measures, also with strong psychometric properties, were better able to capture their respective relationships or relationship types than general attachment styles, as expected.

This research provides guidance to researchers on which measure to use when examining the impact of attachment style in marketing.

This research provides marketing researchers guidance on which measure to use when examining the impact of general attachment styles. Because the JWT scale is brief, psychometrically sound and demonstrates strong predictive validity, it can be used for academic and managerial purposes. The authors also confirm previous research suggesting that relationship-specific measures of attachment style may act differently than general interpersonal attachment style measures and vary in their ability to predict marketing outcomes.

This research is the first to provide guidance regarding which measure of attachment style to use in marketing and consumer research. This research can serve as a reference point for future researchers in selecting measures of attachment style and may allow for convergence on a narrow set of measures to advance research in marketing.

This study aims to investigate the nature of brand hate, its antecedents and its outcomes.

The authors conduct two quantitative studies in Europe. In Study 1, a measure of brand hate is developed and its effects are tested on behavioral outcomes. In Study 2, the authors show how brand hate and its behavioral outcomes change depending on the reasons for brand hate.

The study conceptualizes brand hate as a constellation of negative emotions which is significantly associated with different negative behavioral outcomes, including complaining, negative WOM, protest and patronage reduction/cessation. Reasons for brand hate related to corporate wrongdoings and violation of expectations are associated with “attack-like” and “approach-like” strategies, whereas reasons related to taste systems are associated with “avoidance-like” strategies.

The study views brand hate as an affective phenomenon occurring at a point in time. Researchers could adopt a wider perspective by looking at the phenomenon of hate as a disposition/sentiment, not merely as an emotion. They could also adopt a longitudinal perspective to understand how brand hate develops over time and relate it to brand love.

The authors’ conceptualization of brand hate offers insights to companies about how to resist and prevent brand hate for one’s own brand.

The study provides a first conceptualization of brand hate and develops a scale for measuring it. The authors relate this conceptualization and measurement of brand hate to important behavioral outcomes and different types of antecedents.