Anti-Brand Movements 1

Anti-Brand Movements Sean Pepley Temple University

Anti-Brand Movements 2

Anti-Brand Movements Background: Last fall it was impossible to turn on a television and not be bombarded with images of protestors in Zuccotti Park banning together to denounce what they felt to be injustices conducted both by the government and big business. People of all walks of life: college students, aging hippies, laid-off business folk, and homeless, where all among the crowds that assembled in city-centers across the world. Controversial nature aside, one cant deny the tremendous, though short-lived, power of the recent Occupy-Wall Street and its sister movements. Occupy isnt the first anti-consumerist movement and nor will it be the last, but it has served as a reminder of how much an impact such movements can have. Large anti-consumerist movements like Occupy Wall Street endure both praise and criticism for their broad range of complaints. There is a lot to be learned from Occupy participants, but it may be not easy to filter through those who arent pertinent to the research. That considered, it might be more practically to study movements centered on a particular brand (anti-brand movements). Some marketers may believe that it is wasteful to use resources to study anti-brand movements, Why bother spending money on people who are so adamantly against us? they may ask. However, such notions are dangerous and might result in a recoverable market being permanently alienated. Consumers want to feel as if they are being listened to and while it may be difficult or prohibitively costly to understand their desires. That said, no other time are the consumers needs being clearly expressed than these movements. Theoretical Foundation:

Anti-Brand Movements 3

Groups that band together in mutual admiration of a brand have been labeled as brand communities. Creation of these communities has been is thought to be, in certain circles, as the quintessential step towards the future of marketing. Candice Hollenbeck and George Zinkhan (2006) of the University of Georgia have labeled anti-brand as the antipode of brand communities, a community unified thru mutual dissatisfaction . Anti-brand movements, they argue, form a platform in response to societal needs for expression. Research has found this to be almost entirely agreed upon. Communication between consumers and marketers are long thought to be profitable for both a companys image and finances. The repercussions of such relationships have been devalued or even entirely ignored. Some researcher contest that the emphasis on the consumermarketer relationships is what has given rise to the anti-brand movement (Johnson, Matear, & Thompson 108). Such issues are also reflected the research of S. Umit Kucuk (2008) of the Univeristy of Washington, Bothell who proposes that valuable brands are more susceptible to anti-brand movements when compared to less valuable brands. His Negative Double Jeopardy theory states that while larger brands have many envious, theyre frequently subjected to online scorn. Findings: Creation of Anti-Brand Movements More often than not, anti-brand movements are started by formerly loyal consumers who for some reason have found themselves conflicted with a brand or corporation. They may feel exploited or perceive that the brand has committed some morally-objectionable offense (Hollenbeck & Zinkhan 2006).

Anti-Brand Movements 4

The anti-brand movement has been described as the result of a failure between the consumer-marketer relationships. However, while fallout within such a relationship would normally result in the consumer simply distancing themselves from the brand, by joining an antibrand movement the consumer has committed to attempt to damage the brand (Johnson, et al. 2010). Another common motivator behind anti-brand movements is scorned employees. Hollenbeck and Zinkhan (2006) have found that one-third of participants in their study were current or former employees who have found a platform to voice their complaints that they werent comfortable sharing in the workplace. The researchers conclude that when employees of a brand arent given a proper forum to voice their issues without fear of punishment , they might turn to anti-brand websites for such a safe-haven. Self-Relevancy and Attachment Repercussions Research suggests that consumer-brand relationships can be either self-neutral where the consumer doesnt believe the brand to be a reflection of themselves or self-relevant when the consumer believes that the brand helps define them as a person. Self-relevant relationships are of importance to marketers because they are often indicators of affinity to the brand. Consumers with self-relevance relationships are among those with the most brand loyalty. That considered, these relationships may prove very problematic for brands if they fall apart (Johnson, et al. 2010). Self-relevant relationships cause the consumer to view the product as an extension as ones self and therefore they will experience a more negative reaction. This consumer-brand fallout has been likened to divorce. Unlike self-neutral consumer-brand relationships, the

Anti-Brand Movements 5

emotional attachment within the self-relevant relationship will result in distress if it falls apart (Johnson, et al 110). Similar studies by Thomson, Whelan, and Johnson (2011) have attributed the issues between the consumer and brand to attachment theory which details the human need for affectionate relationships. While attachment theory is typically thought to be person-to-person relationships, it can also be used to describe the bonds between humans and innate objects and brands. The researchers have found that consumers have different attachment styles which predicts how likely they are to react negatively to a change in their relationship with a brand. Due to their tendency to devote more time into building relationships, those who display attributes of the fearful attachment style are more likely to react negatively to a change in the consumer brand relationship, even going so far as to break the law. This is because consumers with fearful attachment styles feel alienated when the relationship ends. Self-relevant relationships and fearful attachment styles are therefore very similar. Both sets of consumers are more likely to build strong relationships with brands, but also are at greater risk for participation in an anti-brand movement if something in that relationship goes awry ( Johnson, et al. 2010; Thomson, et al. 2011). This puts brands in a potentially dangerous situation where their most loyal potential consumers are also the ones that are capable of inflicting the most harm to the brand. Brand Familiarity Utilization by Anti-Brand Websites S. Umit Kucuk (2008) believes that while strong brands have numerous advantages over weaker brands, he contends that this puts strong brands at greater risk for anti-brand movements. He refers to his theory as Negative Double Jeopardy.

Anti-Brand Movements 6

The rise of the internet, Kucuk (2008) contends, has made it easier than ever for consumers to voice their dissatisfaction. Organizing physical protests may be considered for would-be anti-brand movements, but now websites can accomplish comparative goals at much less a cost. Kucuk gives several examples in which frustrated consumers have purchased domain names to voice their frustrations that ended up turning into online communities. Often times these anti-brand websites play off the brands name: Shameway.com (Safeway) and Starbucked.org (Starbucks) are two notable examples. Protected under the first amendment, provided they arent making a profit, these websites utilize the respective brands familiarity to reach other consumers. Due to the similarity in their domain names, anti-brand websites may come up in search engine results or, in a practice called typo-squatting, draw in users who mistype the domain name. Anti-brand websites like Starbucked.org have become one of modern societys greatest communications platforms. Due to the close associations with brand, these anti-brand movements can easily attract new followers. No longer are these websites simply forums for consumer frustrations, but the starting ground for lawsuits, boycotts, and other actions (Kucuk 2008). The Ethical Consumer Many researchers have touched on the perceived lapse in morals of a brand being the cause of the consumer abandoning the brand (Hollenbeck & Zinkhan 2006;Johnson, et al. 2010; Thompson, et al. 2011). While consumers may have previously been able to overlook an ethical conflict with a brand, this might be no longer the case. Isleide Arrude Fontenelle (2010) writes of the rise of the responsible consumer. The responsible consumer is thought to be a defense

Anti-Brand Movements 7

against typical consumer-culture, a new breed of consumer that wishes from brands and corporations to uphold a certain moral standard or in extreme cases be free of brands altogether. Anti-consumerist organization and magazine, Adbusters, attempted to compete with Nike by creating an ethical sneaker. Marketed as being produced without human exploitation, these sneakers were adopted by consumers despite being much costlier than Nike's. However, these practices are not exclusive to Adbusters, large brands have been employing similar techniques to general success(Fontenelle, 2010). Possible Solutions While it is unlikely that a brand would be able to cease all anti-brand activity from its consumers, there are several steps that can be taken to prevent the consumer-brand relationship from falling out. As suggested by Fontenelle (2010), brands have successfully employed marketing techniques that are perceived as ethical by consumers. For example, Starbucks carries at least one, generally more expensive, fair-trade coffee in all of its stores. Since the consumer is willing to pay a higher price for a product that they feel as being ethically superior, the brand is still able to make a profit despite the higher cost of making such a product. Fontenelle refers to such practices as a new trend in brand capitalism (2010). Possibly the easiest, least costly response to anti-brand movements is studying them. Kucuk (2007) contends that while most companies take expensive measures like to fight antibrand movements and websites, they could utilize those resources to understand these consumers. Though, Kucuk claims, these consumers might not be the most reliable, proper analysis of them will give insight into handling anti-brand movements in the future.

Anti-Brand Movements 8

Consumers that form the strongest relationships with brands are also those that are at the greatest risk to join an anti-brand movement if that relationship falls apart (Johnson, et al. 2010;Thomson, et al. 2011). It may be discouraging that these consumers have been known to to flee the brand for even the smallest of offense (Thompson 2011), it is possible to prevent them from joining anti-brand movements and alleviate the feelings of animosity. While simply trying to win consumers may prove ineffective, brands have found success in assisting a consumer find a new brand before negative feelings arise. While unorthodox, this practice prevents the consumer from damaging the brand (Johnson, et al. 2010). Conclusion: Implications: Participants of anti-brand movements are often those that were among the most loyal consumers of the brand (Johnson, et al 2010;Thomson, et al. 2011). For personal reason(s) the consumer has felt alienated by the brand and has chosen to take part in activities to attempt to damage the brand. Increasingly these movements have found a home on the internet where they can easily connect with consumers with similar dissatisfaction. While stronger, more well-known brands have many advantages to weaker brands they are also more prone to anti-brand activity. If an anti-brand movement has close associations with the brand that it is standing against then the movement is more likely to gain the attention of new consumers. Movements against large brands like Wal-mart and Starbucks have made their websites so similar to the brand itself that there are many instances where they have tricked users into entering the anti-brand webpage (Kucuk 2008).

Anti-Brand Movements 9

The consumer-brand relationship is very complex, especially among those with selfrelevant relationships (Johnson, et al. 2010) and those that display fearful attachment styles (Thomson, et al. 2011). It is important that care is taken to insure that these consumers are being listened to as they are the ones most at risk for starting anti-brand movements. There are several techniques used to win anti-brand consumers back or help them move on to a different brand to prevent further damage to the brand (Johnson, et al. 2010). Recommendations for Future Research While research provided quotes of anti-brand participants, little information was gathered about what caused the consumer to leave the brand. Johnson (2010) refers to the act which the consumer-brand relationship goes awry as the Critical Incident. Was this incident the catalyst for the deterioration of the relationship or was it the final straw in a series of actions by a brand that a consumer found questionable? Further investigation into these questions may help guide brands seeking to avoid anti-brand activity. Managerial Takeaways 1. In such an internet-centric society, consumers have more power than ever before. Brands would be ill-advised to ignore anti-brand movements as their web presence enables them to hastily grow. 2. Much caution should be taken when addressing your most loyal consumer base. Assumptions that they may never leave the brand are dangerous; they, in fact, they may even stand against the brand for the slightest offense.

Anti-Brand Movements 10

3. Due to their tendency to create associations, anti-brand movements targeting larger brands can more quickly gain traction and power. 4. While it might seem counterproductive to a brand's growth, marketers should consider assisting a potential anti-brand consumer into finding a replacement brand. While this might result in a loss of sales, it can minimize the damage to the brand.

References

Anti-Brand Movements 11

Hollenbeck, C. R., & Zinkhan, G. M. (2006). Consumer activism on the internet: The role of anti-brand communities. Advances in Consumer Research, 33(1), 479-485.

Isleide Arruda Fontenelle. (2010). Global responsibility through consumption? Critical Perspectives on International Business, 6(4), 256-272. Johnson, A. R., Matear, M., & Thomson, M. (2011). A coal in the heart: Self-relevance as a postexit predictor of consumer anti-brand actions. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(1), 108125 Kucuk, S. U. (2008). Negative double jeopardy: The role of anti-brand sites on the internet. Journal of Direct, Data and Digital Marketing Practice, 10(1), 209-222. Thomson, M., Whelan, J., & Johnson, A. R. (2011). Why brands should fear fearful consumers: How attachment style predicts retaliation. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(1), 289296.