Sunteți pe pagina 1din 8

Journal of Business Research 62 (2009) 1119–1126

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

Anti-branding on the internet


Sandeep Krishnamurthy ⁎, S. Umit Kucuk 1
University of Washington, Bothell, Washington, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Anti-brand web sites are online spaces that focus negative attention on a specific targeted brand. Although
Received 1 October 2007 anti-consumption movements on the internet have been gaining in numbers and in strength, research has
Received in revised form 1 April 2008 not fully uncovered the nature of such sites and their impact on brand value and consumer anti-
Accepted 1 September 2008
consumption. We present a conceptual framework describing online anti-branding and investigate causal
relationships in two empirical studies. Study 1 investigates the brand value's impact on likelihood of the
Keywords:
presence of anti-brand sites. Strong brands are more likely to have anti-brand sites. Study 2 is a content
Internet
Branding
analysis of a representative sample of anti-brand sites that assesses the nature of the language used by such
Anti-consumption sites. Anti-brand sites use three types of language — market, ideological and transactional speech. The study
Online consumption finds that market speech is most prevalent and relates to brand value.
Hate sites © 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Anti-brand web sites are online spaces that focus negative attention Many pressing research questions pertaining to anti-brand sites
on a specific targeted brand (Bailey, 2004; Harrison-Walker, 2001). Such deserve investigation. How common are these sites? Which brands do
sites use visual expression, memorable domain names, and critical they target? Are these anti-brand sites powerful enough to change
language to create a negative online identity for the targeted brand (see market dynamics? Do anti-brand sites affect the brand value of the
Exhibit 1 for a list of illustrative anti-branding examples). An analysis of targeted brand? What is the nature of the criticism leveled against
questionable business practices and socially irresponsible actions such brands? How do such anti-brand sites affect the consumption of
informs this negative identity. Many anti-brand sites are community- consumers? This paper is an attempt to answer some of these impor-
oriented (Hagel and Armstrong, 1997) and facilitate collective action tant questions.
against a brand by providing empowered consumers and activists We first briefly review the pertinent literature. A new conceptual
(Hoffman et al., 2004; Moynagh and Worsley, 2002; Urban et al., 2000) framework illustrates the anti-branding process. Study 1 investigates
with a forum to voice discontent, facilitate the exchange of anti-brand the relationship between the presence of anti-brand sites and brand
information, organize boycotts, and coordinate lawsuits. value. Study 2 provides a content analysis of a representative sample
Two indicators of the influence of anti-brand sites are available. of anti-brand sites to assess the manner and style of communication in
First, evidence from industry studies informs that such web sites are which anti-brand sites influence brand value and thus, consumption.
becoming common. One study reports an increase in such sites from
550 at the end of 1997 to 10,500 in December 2004 (www.mi2g.net/ 1. Literature review
cgi/mi2g/frameset.php?pageid=http%3A//www.mi2g.net/cgi/
mi2g/press/021204.php). Second, the preemptive purchase of defa- The available literature studying anti-brand sites is scant. The
matory domain names demonstrates the seriousness with which available literature obscures the difference between anti-brand web
managers treat such sites (e.g., Volvo's volvosucks.com, Chase sites and complaint or product evaluation forums (Bailey, 2004;
Manhattan's chasesucks.com, ihatechase.com, and Exxon's exxon- Harrison-Walker, 2001). While anti-brand web sites, complaint and
sucks.com; Fitzgerald, 2000; Harrison-Walker, 2001; Nemes, 2000). product evaluation forums all involve social interaction among the
Priceline.com purchased pricelinesucks.com even before priceline. customers of a corporation (Godes et al., 2005; Hagel and Armstrong,
com went online (Harrison-Walker, 2001; Marlatt, 1998). 1997), they are different in their purpose and structure. Table 1 sum-
marizes these differences.
Complaint forums are web sites where consumers post public or
⁎ Corresponding author. University of Washington, Bothell, Box 358533, 18115 private comments about a transaction with a company (Bailey, 2004;
Campus Way NE, Room UW1-233, Bothell, WA 98011-8246, United States. Tel.: +1 425 Harrison-Walker, 2001). Public comments provide other consumers
352 5229; fax: +1 425 352 5277.
E-mail addresses: sandeep@u.washington.edu (S. Krishnamurthy),
with information that might be useful while dealing with the
umittin@hotmail.com (S.U. Kucuk). company. The company receives private comments for resolution.
1
Tel.: +1 206 330 8975. Thus, complaint forums provide consumers with a platform to give

0148-2963/$ – see front matter © 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.09.003
1120 S. Krishnamurthy, S.U. Kucuk / Journal of Business Research 62 (2009) 1119–1126

Exhibit 1. Illustrations of online anti-branding.

voice to specific transactional complaints (Hirschman, 1970) or to such use does not lead to trademark dilution due to brand confusion (see
resolve such problems with the aid of the forum. the discussion of Bally's vs. Faber case in Kopp and Suter, 2000, pg. 126).
Product evaluation forums are online spaces where consumers can
evaluate the quality of a product or service (Mayzlin and Chevalier, 2. Conceptual framework
2006). Product reviews provided by consumers reduce the uncer-
tainty of others' purchases and improve the efficiency of their search Fig. 1 outlines a conceptual framework of the anti-branding process.
(Hennig-Thurau and Walsh, 2003). Online product reviews are a form The anti-branding process has two causal antecedents: “consumer
of electronic word-of-mouth (Mayzlin and Chevalier, 2006) that empowerment” as a precondition and “consumer dissatisfaction” as a
facilitate social interaction among consumers (Godes et al., 2005). trigger. A broad characterization of consumer dissatisfaction is used —
In contrast to these forums, the focus of anti-brand sites is on affecting specifically, we describe three types of dissatisfaction, transactional
individual consumption through the construction of a negative brand (which represents dissatisfaction with a retailer on the level of service),
identity (Wolrich, 2005). This focus makes them different from market dissatisfaction (which represents dissatisfaction with business
complaint forums, which focus on transactional dissatisfaction and practices) and ideological dissatisfaction (which represents dissatisfac-
product evaluation forums, which focus on product quality. In construct- tion with the economic system). Taken together, these two factors lead
ing a negative online identity, anti-brand sites are likely to address a to the presence of anti-brand sites.
wider range of issues (e.g., cultural, technological, political, legal matters). The focus in this paper is on the outcomes of anti-branding rather
The tradeoff between the intellectual property rights of the firm and than the antecedents.
the free speech rights of citizens is the chief focus of the limited literature
that has studied anti-brand sites (Cava, 2005; Illia, 2003; Katz and 2.1. Consumer empowerment: precondition
Carnahan, 2001; Kopp and Suter, 2000). American federal law protects
such sites if they do not generate a profit and if they do not make Consumer empowerment is a necessary condition to achieve con-
fraudulent defamatory claims. At least one legal ruling holds that sumer activism goals in markets. Since consumers often organize anti-
including a trademark in domain names is not infringement because brand sites, they are a clear manifestation of online consumer power

Table 1
Differences between anti-brand sites and other types of online forums.

Complaint forum Product evaluation forum Anti-brand site


Organizer For-profit intermediary. For-profit intermediary. Consumer
Non-profit agency
Labor union
Other third-party agency
Purpose To provide public or private space for To provide public space for consumer's To create a negative online identity of the brand through
consumer complaints about transactions. evaluation of a product or service. a criticism of the market and social position of the firm.
Examples 1-Planetfeedback.com 1-ePinions.com 1-AmexSux.com
2-Ripoffreport.com 2-Ciao.co.uk 2-Aolsucks.org
3-My3Cents.com 3-Amazon.com's product reviews 3-Killercoke.org
Focus Specific transaction Product quality Market and social position of the firm
Stance of the site Agnostic or firm-friendly Agnostic Negative
Theory Exit-voice theory Word of mouth, Service marketing Brand theory
Current literature Harrison-Walker (2001) Godes et al., 2005 Cava (2005)
Bailey (2004) Hennig-Thurau and Walsh (2003) Katz and Carnahan (2001)
S. Krishnamurthy, S.U. Kucuk / Journal of Business Research 62 (2009) 1119–1126 1121

Fig. 1. Anti-branding conceptual framework.

(Pitt et al., 2002; Urban, 2004) and greater consumer sovereignty (Klein 2.2. Consumer dissatisfaction: trigger
et al., 2004; Smith, 1987). This research contributes to the current
discourse on online empowerment of customers (Hoffman et al., 2004; The literature on consumer satisfaction in marketing is voluminous
Moynagh and Worsley, 2002; Urban et al., 2000). (Oliver, 1996). At the same time, a large literature treats consumer
The internet enables consumer empowerment on technological, dissatisfaction as a distinct construct. Singh (1990) classified dissatisfied
economic, social and legal dimensions (Kucuk and Krishnamurthy, consumers into four segments: passives, voicers, irates and activists.
2007). Technological empowerment derives from the egalitarian and Organizers of anti-brand sites are likely to be activists. In addition to
decentralized information architecture of the World Wide Web that transactional dissatisfaction with a retailer and the quality of service
allows individuals to create their own communication and media spaces (Oliver, 1996), online anti-branders might experience market or
(e.g., blogs, websites) to express their views effectively to a target ideological dissatisfaction. Market-level dissatisfaction might represent
audience and involving co-creation of marketing messages and brand disappointment with a brand or discontentment with irresponsible
identity (Krishnamurthy, 2001; Oliver, 2006; Urban, 2004). A greater business practices. A sense of alienation from the marketplace resulting
level of information access enables economic empowerment allowing from a chronic discontent with the marketplace (Brokaw and Finch,
consumers to access best value in the markets. Socially, the internet 1995) likely drives ideological dissatisfaction (Allison, 1978; Zarrel,
enables greater social interaction and organization enabling the 1980). According to political consumerism theory, ideologically dis-
construction of collective social identity (Bagozzi and Dholakia, 2002; satisfied individuals are empowered consumers who enact social
Hogg and Michell, 1997). Finally, the internet enables legal empower- change through actions in the marketplace (Holzer, 2006). Such
ment of consumers through greater access to legal information. A greater consumers are likely to be “distrustful of political institutions”
level of technological, economic, social and legal consumer empower- (specifically, businesses in our case) and are likely to have more trust
ment is likely to increase the likelihood of the creation of anti-brand sites. in other citizens or other compatible consumers (Stolle et al., 2005).
Even though consumer boycotts existed prior to the internet (e.g., With inspiration from exit-voice theory (Hirschman, 1970), the
Friedman, 1985; Garrett, 1987), the presence of online tools and infor- response to dissatisfaction is classifiable into “voice response” (i.e.,
mation has led to a new level of consumer activism. The internet attracts complaining to the retailer or service provider), “private response”
activists due to its capabilities for simultaneous interaction and easy (i.e., communicating with friends and family), and “third party
broadcast to a large consumer audience. Activist consumers are able to responses” (e.g., complaining to the Federal Trade Commission or
clearly broadcast their message and communicate with other like- Better Business Bureau) (Singh, 1990). Conceptually, anti-branding is
minded individuals, which allow them to develop strong group identity closest to third-party responses.
and support for one another creating a social or political movement Previous research shows that activists are more likely to use all three
(Roper, 2002). responses and use stronger negative language when they are dissatisfied
Online activism includes a variety of proactive and aggressive online (Singh and Wilkes, 1996). Some empirical evidence supports the
methods of protest such as cyber attacks, website defacements, virtual conclusion that third-party responses are at a higher hierarchical level
sit-ins, and massive e-mail campaigns (e-mail bombs) (Garrett, 1987; than voice and private responses (Feick, 1987); those who complain to
Vegh, 2003). One of the most developed forms of boycott or protests third-parties are more likely to believe that businesses do not respond to
established by consumer activists is the anti-brand hate site. complaints and that dissatisfied consumers must complain (Singh,
1122 S. Krishnamurthy, S.U. Kucuk / Journal of Business Research 62 (2009) 1119–1126

1990). In sum, greater dissatisfaction is likely to be associated with “sucks”, “blows”, “sux”, “watch”, “hate”, “anti” and “bad” — negative words
greater likelihood of anti-branding. that are used widely. Thus, for Microsoft, the searches would include
(1) Microsoft sucks, (2) “Microsoft sucks”, (3) Microsoft blows, (4)
3. Study 1 “Microsoft blows”, (5) Microsoft hate, (6) “Microsoft hate” and so on.
The purpose of this research is to identify sites whose raison d'etre
3.1. Hypotheses is anti-branding. Sites featuring one paragraph attacking a brand (e.g.,
on an online bulletin board) are excluded. We supplemented the list
The purpose of Study 1 is to study the relationship between the obtained through this search process with web sites identified in
incidence of anti-brand sites and brand value, that is, the targeting previous studies in the literature. After preparing this final list, two
process. Strong brands (the interest here is in market-level or aggregate researchers visited each site to establish uniqueness. As a result of this
rather than consumer-level or individual brand strength — Woodside precaution, we are able to exclude multiple instantiations of the same
and Walser, 2007) may become targets of consumer attacks through site (a process known as “mirroring”).
anti-brand sites for two reasons. First, since stronger brands are well The use of search engines in academic research is still new and is
known and widely used, attacking them online is a great way of drawing part of the larger conversation about how the internet transforms
attention to persistent industry-level issues. Criticizing market leaders scholarly research (Johnson, 2001). However, other researchers have
leads to greater media coverage than criticizing laggards. Second, since used search engines to study consumer websites (Schau and Gilly,
strong brands frequently dominate the marketplace in terms of market 2003) and consumer criticism (Nasir, 2004).
share, a.k.a. “Double Jeopardy” (Ehrenberg et al., 1990; Uncles et al., We draw brand values from Business Week's publicly available “Top
1995), calling for their boycott might be a way of increasing the 100 Brands” List (see http://bwnt.businessweek.com/brand/2005/
possibility of having market impact. Third, targeting strong brands index.asp). Business Week employs Interbrand to compute brand
might be a rational strategy since they are likely to be most worried valuation. To arrive at the value of the brand, Interbrand goes through
about the loss of their brand equity. For instance, Innes (2006) argues multiple steps. First, to qualify for the top 100 list, the brand must have a
that boycotts might target large firms because they have a greater value greater than $1 billion, must obtain about one-third of its earnings
incentive to accept the demands of boycotters mainly because the claims outside its country of origin, and have publicly available marketing and
of boycotters might weaken the brand with target consumers. financial data. This method explicitly excludes airlines. Second, for
multi-brand firms, Interbrand deduces the current revenue that is
H1. The higher the brand value, the greater the likelihood of presence
attributable to a brand. Third, Interbrand identifies a discount rate based
of anti-brand sites.
on a variety of factors and computes a discounted value of the projected
Anti-brand sites can have a negative impact on brand value through a profits of the brand to determine the value of the brand.
negative online identity. Specifically, anti-brand sites might negatively The sample consists of the top 100 brands in Business Week's 2004
affect the favorability and uniqueness of brand associations (Keller,1993). list. For each brand, we obtain the brand value in 2004 and 2005.
Such sites affect the favorability of associations by highlighting neg- Change in brand value is simply the difference in brand value over the
ative aspects of the brand and describing socially irresponsible business two years, as reported on the BW List. The sample size is 100 for 2004
practices. This enables the rejection of brand identity by the creation of and 90 for 2005, that is, ten brands in the 2004 list did not appear in
“negative selves” (Banister and Hogg, 2001; Marcus and Nurius, 1986; the 2005 list. We identified all web sites using search queries between
Ogilvie, 1987), that is, what a consumer dislikes (negative self) may be May 1 and May 15, 2005.
playing a more influential role in the consumer's decision-making pro- The study design involves two control variables: country of origin
cess than what he or she likes (positive self) (Ogilvie, 1987). and technology vs. non-technology brand. The country of origin is a 1–
Anti-brand sites affect the uniqueness of brand associations by 0 dummy variable that takes the value of 1 for American brands and 0
helping create the “doppelganger brand image”, a complicated and otherwise. This controls for disproportionate representation of
diverse online brand identity (Thompson et al., 2006). The creation of American brands. Next, to control for the explanation that anti-
this diffuse identity leads to “brand avoidance” effects (i.e., consumers brand sites target technology brands disproportionately, we include a
deliberately avoiding the target brand) as described in Thompson et al. 1–0 dummy variable, which takes the value of 1 for technology brands
(2006). Some consumers might not agree with the content in anti- and 0 otherwise.
brand sites and the ensuing counter-argumentation might increase
the strength of their relationship with the brand. However, we expect 3.3. Findings
this to be a small effect and in general, we argue that the negative
identity created by anti-brand sites is likely to lead to degradation of The maximum number of anti-brand sites by any brand is 12
consumer attitudes, change in behavior and finally, a drop in brand (Microsoft) followed by 10(Ford) and 8(Nestle). In our sample, thirty
value. Therefore, the second hypothesis is: brands have two or more anti-brand sites. Fifty-five out of the top 100
brands have no anti-brand site associated with them. Fifteen brands
H2. The presence of anti-brand sites is associated with negative changes have one unique anti-brand site associated with them.
in brand value.

Table 2
3.2. Method
Binary logistic regression results.

In this study, we use queries on two leading search engines (Google Model 1 Model 2
and Yahoo) to identify anti-brand sites. Since search engines use different Independent Coefficients Odds Independent Coefficients Odds
algorithms, this maximizes the chances of locating anti-brand sites. The variables variables

research method involves two types of searches for each brand: (1) brand Intercept − 1.51⁎ Intercept − 0.86⁎⁎
BV04, in 000s 0.07⁎⁎ 1.07 BV05, in 000s 0.06⁎⁎ 1.07
name bnegative termN and (2) “brand name bnegative termN.” Search
US brand 1.16⁎⁎ 3.17 US brand 0.74⁎⁎⁎ 2.09
engines are sensitive to the use of quotation marks. If quotes are used, the Tech. brand − 0.92⁎⁎⁎ 0.40 Tech. brand − 0.96⁎⁎ 0.38
exact term is located. If they are not used, they serve up pages that have Chi-square 21.52⁎ 15.31⁎
either term. The latter (i.e., the use of quotes) is a search for an exact phrase ⁎ p ≤ 0.01.
whereas the former points to sites where both terms exist, but not in a ⁎⁎ p ≤ 0.05.
phrase. To find hate sites, searches included negative terms such as ⁎⁎⁎ p ≤ 0.1.
S. Krishnamurthy, S.U. Kucuk / Journal of Business Research 62 (2009) 1119–1126 1123

We report Pearson correlations as a simple test of the relationship as negative double jeopardy, that is, strong brands tend to have more
between brand value and number of anti-brand sites. Consistent with disadvantages in comparison to weaker brands. However, this view
H1, the number of anti-brand sites is positively and significantly does not provide an understanding of how such brands are targeted.
correlated with brand value in 2005 (0.385, p b 0.01) and brand value Study 2 attempts to provide such understanding.
in 2004 (0.264, p b 0.01). Consistent with H2, the number of anti-
brand sites is negatively and significantly correlated with change in 4. Study 2
brand value (−0.223, p b 0.05).
Two different logistic models provide a more rigorous test of the Anti-brand sites use language as a strategic device to affect online
impact of anti-brand sites' presence on brand value (Table 2). In each brand identity. Such “expressive publicity” (Hogg and Michell, 1997)
model, the dependent variable is the presence (1) or absence (0) of acts as a counterbalance to the brand identity (Banister and Hogg,
anti-brand sites. In Model 1, the independent variables are the brand 2001) developed by corporations. Since brand equity rests on
value in 2004 and the two control variables (US vs. non-US, Tech vs. “symbolic values and meanings” (Wee and Ming, 2003), diminishing
non-Tech). The overall model is significant (Chi-square = 21.518, or obscuring brand associations affect the relationship between a
significant at 0.01 level). As hypothesized, the coefficient for brand brand and a target consumer. This study investigates the commu-
value in 2004 is positive (0.0713) and significant at the 0.05 level. The nication themes used by anti-brand sites and the relationship be-
coefficient for the country of origin variable is positive (1.1551) and tween the communication approach of an anti-brand site and the
significant at the 0.05 level. The coefficient for the tech/non-tech value of that particular brand.
brand variable is negative (− 0.916) and significant at the 0.1 level. The language used in anti-brand sites is distinct from product
In Model 2, the independent variables are the brand value in 2005 evaluation and complaint forums. While product evaluation forums
and the two control variables (US vs. non-US, Tech vs. non-Tech). The feature language related to product quality and complaint forums
overall model is significant (Chi-square = 15.306, significant at 0.01 focus on language pertaining to transactions and service situations
level). As hypothesized, the coefficient for brand value in 2005 is (Bailey, 2004; Harrison-Walker, 2001), anti-brand sites use a wider
positive (0.0633) and significant at the 0.05 level. The coefficient for range of language. The language on anti-brand sites might be on topics
the country of origin variable is positive (0.7380) and significant at the such as labor rights (e.g., underpaid employees, unfair treatment of
0.1 level. Once again, the coefficient for the tech/non-tech brand employees, discrimination, child labor, prison labor, long work hours),
variable is negative (− 0.9631) and significant at the 0.05 level. Taken unfair treatment of animals (e.g., use of animals for product testing,),
together, Models 1 and 2 provide support for H1. excessive profits (e.g., price gouging, CEO salary), harmful products
We test H2 using an Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression with and predatory competitive practices (e.g., monopoly pricing, destroy-
change in brand value as the dependent variable and the presence or ing small competitors). Product evaluation and complaint forums are
absence of anti-brand sites as the independent variable. As before, we not likely to exhibit these language elements.
include the two control variables — “Tech vs. Non-Tech” and “US vs. Non-
US”. The overall model is significant — F(3,86) = 3.120, p = 0.030 with 4.1. Research questions
an adj. R2 of 0.067. The coefficient for the presence/absence of anti-
brand sites is negative (standardized coefficient= −0.224, p = 0.044). Study 2 investigates how anti-brand sites use language strategi-
This is consistent with H2. The control variables are not significant — cally to affect brand value. Even though language is regarded as
(standardized coefficient for “Tech vs. Non-Tech” = 0.069, p = 0.502, important in the creation of brand identity the literature generally
standardized coefficient for “US vs. Non-US” = −1.869, p = 0.227). focuses almost exclusively on the use of language in naming brands
(e.g., Klink, 2003; Yorkston and Menon, 2004). Given the textual na-
3.4. Discussion ture of the World Wide Web and the differences between online and
offline brands (Sääksjärvi and Samiee, 2007), linking language to
The results of Study 1 are consistent with the hypotheses. After brand identity is of vital importance.
controlling for country-of-origin and technology effects, the presence The first research question for this study is
of anti-brand sites positively affects brand value and negatively affects
change in brand value. While previous research has identified the R1. What is the nature of language used on anti-brand sites?
positive impact of brand strength, this research demonstrates that
strong brands “pay a price” in the online marketplace. Anti-brand sites The focus of the research is on many aspects of the language used such
disproportionately target strong brands. as diversity (i.e., which type of language elements are used?) and fre-
Study one indicates that strong brands are more likely to be tar- quency (i.e., which type of language elements are used more often?).
geted for anti-brand sites. Kucuk (2008) conceptualizes such targeting These issues are common in various content analysis studies. For instance,

Table 3
The list of themes-content units used for content analysis.

Themes Definition Examples


Brand name Words that identify a brand name owned by corporation. Microsoft, Ford, Coca-Cola, Honda
Business Terms related to business operations. Marketing, Costs, Vendor, Supplier, Turnover, Sales, Corporate
Competitors Names of competitors or words related to competition. Linux, Novell, Netscape, Nds, Competitive, Apple, Java, Aol
Consumers Terms related to users/consumers. User, Consumer, Community, Clients
Global Words that indicate different nationalities, countries and cultures Americans, Venezuelans,
Legal Words associated with legal procedures. Legal, License, Unlawful, Agreement, Rights, Testimonies, Justice
Media Words that related media tools and news TV, news, radio, magazines
Negative Words that criticize, insult or malign the company. Lies, Anti, Flaws, Guilty, Monopolist, Opposite, Misinformation, Ignored
Person Name of person associated with the company. Ballmer, Gates, Steve, Allchin, Bill, Ford
Politics Name of the political parties, and political views Republican, Democrat, Politics,
Positive Words that praise. Advantage, Good, Benefit
Product Terms related to Corporation's product offerings. Software, Version, Server, Release, Pc, Update
Service Words associated with service provided to product users. Support, Services, Maintenance
Technology Terms related to technologies used by Corporation. Internet, Network, Browser, Html, Domain, Digital
1124 S. Krishnamurthy, S.U. Kucuk / Journal of Business Research 62 (2009) 1119–1126

Grau et al. (2007) investigated the frequency and nature of the depiction Table 4
of female athletes in various advertisements. Similarly, An (2007) studied Correlations between content theme frequency and brand values.

issues of diverse website execution styles and their relative frequency in a Concept Theme Type of Brand value 2004 Brand value 2005
study on the local websites of global brands. frequency speech (n = 30) (n = 26)
The second research question for this study is: Brand name 1252 Market 0.53⁎⁎ 0.53⁎
Business 1734 Market 0.54⁎⁎ 0.54⁎⁎
R2. What are the relationships between language and brand value? Competitors 220 Market 0.37⁎ 0.41⁎
Consumers 783 Market 0.34 0.40
Legal 290 Market 0.29 0.27
4.2. Method Negative 2623 Market 0.61 0.61⁎⁎
Positive 343 Market 0.31 0.40⁎
We focus on brands with more than two anti-brand sites. For each Product 1496 Market 0.69⁎⁎ 0.66⁎⁎
Technology 794 Market 0.33⁎ 0.40⁎
brand, we identify one anti-brand site resulting in thirty anti-brand Global 432 Ideological − 0.12 − 0.16
sites. First, we search and identify the underlying content themes in Person 164 Ideological 0.04 0.02
these sites (Riffe et al., 2005; Stempel, 2003; Weber, 1990). Next, in Political 703 Ideological −0.15 − 0.18
order to identify these themes, two judges browse the anti-brand sites Media 90 Transactional 0.21 0.16
Service 455 Transactional 0.44⁎ 0.42⁎
extensively. To create an exhaustive list of themes, each judge iden-
tifies various themes organically. The judges compare and reconcile ⁎⁎ p b 0.01.
⁎ p b 0.05.
themes and discuss their understanding of a theme to ensure uniform
coding. Table 3 shows the final list of themes.
Then, using a text analyzer (http://textalyser.net/index.php?lang= “media” and “service” content themes represent transactional speech.
en#analysis), the judges identify the frequency distribution of words for This communication pattern is associated with sites that are
each site. The information architecture of anti-brand web sites in the interested in locating and disseminating service failures.
sample differ considerably. Certain sites have various layers of We use a correlation analysis to understand the relationship between
information while others have one simple home page. To maintain content themes and brand value. Table 4 summarizes the results.
uniformity, we choose the home page of each site leading to thirty web Seven out of fourteen content themes have significant correlations
pages. Each judge then independently went over the words and with brand values. These content themes correlated most strongly with
classified them based on the list of themes shown in Table 3. We brand value: “product”, “negative”, “brand name”, “business”, “service”,
exclude a limited number of common irrelevant words (e.g., “of”, “and”, “competitors” and “technology.” Significant correlations ranged from a
“an”, “the”, “to”). high of 0.687 to a low of 0.328. For the “positive” content theme, the
Each judge independently classifies content units. Inter-rater correlation is significant with brand value in 2005 (0.395), but not 2004
reliability is estimated using Perreault and Leigh (1989)'s widely (0.305). The correlations between “consumers”, “legal”, “media” and
accepted equation used in the scholarly literature on content analysis “person” and brand value are positive and insignificant. The correlations
(e.g., see Hoy and Andrews, 2006). Inter-rater agreement on the between the “global” and “political” themes are negative and insignificant.
content of the home pages varies from a minimum of 0.8397 to a In sum, six out of seven significant correlations are between
maximum of 0.9290. The average reliability value is 0.8810, which market speech elements and brand value. This indicates the greater
meets previous norms. significance of market speech as an attack process.

4.3. Findings 4.4. Discussion

The descriptive statistics of the content analysis indicate that a The results of the content analysis in Study-2 show that anti-brand
wide range in the word count in these sites — from 171 to 4211 with an sites adopt one of three communication patterns: market, ideological
average of 946 words per site. The anti-brand sites in the sample used or transactional speech. Sites that adopt market speech act as strategic
easy-to-understand language. We used the Gunning–Fog index to market agents using market-related expertise to criticize brands. Sites
measure readability. This comes from the linguistics research on that adopt ideological speech focus on attacks that are personal or
readability and provides the number of years of school education to partisan in nature. Sites that adopt transactional speech showcase
understand a particular passage (Gunning, 1969). The index is transaction-related failures. Market speech is more prevalent in
0.4 ⁎ ((average # of words/sentence) + (average # of three-syllable comparison to the other two categories and correlates more strongly
words/100 words)). The average Gunning–Fog Index is 8.02, which with brand value. This demonstrates the strategic behavior of these
indicates that the material is readable at about an eighth-grade level sites in the online marketplace.
(Riffe et al., 2005). Both studies find that anti-brand sites target strong brands more.
The six most commonly used themes, in order, are “negative”, Study 1 finds that anti-brand web sites are more likely to target stronger
“business”, “product”, “brand name”, “technology” and “consumers.” brands. Study 2 reports that market speech is used more often with
This indicates the use of business-oriented market language and a stronger brands. The results situate this work in the context of previous
consumer orientation. The top five least used themes, in order, are studies. Previous research has focused entirely on transactional speech
“media”, “person”, “competitors”, “legal” and “global.” (Harrison-Walker, 2001; Bailey, 2004). The findings of Study 2 create a
Based on our content analysis, we classify the content on anti- new taxonomy of communication strategies.
brand sites into three types of speech — market, ideological and
transactional speech. These content themes indicate market speech: 5. Limitations
“brand name”, “business”, “competitors”, “consumer”, “legal”, “nega-
tive”, “positive”, “product” and “technology.” Market speech includes Our study suffers from these limitations. First, we study the ag-
attacks on branding strategy, irresponsible business practices, anti- gregate relationship of anti-brand sites with brand value. We are not
consumer business processes and defective products and technolo- able to uncover the impact of anti-brand sites at the consumer level.
gies. These content themes represent ideological speech: “global”, Some consumers might visit such sites and not be influenced. Second,
“person”, and “political.” These attacks are frequently of a personal or our method to uncover the number of sites may have undercounted
partisan nature. Often, such sites use phrases such as “Person/XYZ is anti-brand sites. Specifically, we might have missed sites that adopted a
evil” or “Company XYZ is run by greedy corporate executives…” The sophisticated linguistic structure (e.g., sarcasm). Third, since we used
S. Krishnamurthy, S.U. Kucuk / Journal of Business Research 62 (2009) 1119–1126 1125

the Business Week brand list, the limitations of their brand valuation Garrett Dennis E. The Effectiveness of Marketing Policy Boycotts: Environmental
Opposition to Marketing. J Mark 1987;51(2):46–57.
method apply. Fourth, our content analysis provides an indirect Godes David, Mayzlin Dana, Chen Yubo, Das Sanjib, Dellarocas Chrysanthos, Pfeiffer Bruce,
understanding of the motivations of the creators of anti-brand sites et al. The firm's management of social interactions. Market Lett 2005;16(3/4):415–28.
rather than what would be possible with direct questioning. Grau Stacy Landreth, Roselli Georgina, Taylor Charles R. Where's Tamika catchings? A
content analysis of female athlete endorsers in magazine advertisements. J Curr
Issues Res Advert 2007;29(1):55–65.
6. Conclusion Gunning Robert. The Fog index after twenty years. J Bus Commun 1969;6(2):3-13.
Hagel John, Armstrong Arthur. Net gain: expanding markets through virtual commu-
nities. Cambridge MA: Harvard Business School Press; 1997.
This work contributes to the literature in these ways. First, we
Harrison-Walker Jean L. E-complaining: a content analysis of an internet complaint
describe anti-branding as a separate process distinct from product forum. J Serv Mark 2001;15(5):397–412.
evaluation and complaint forums; second, we propose a conceptual Hennig-Thurau T, Walsh G. Electronic word-of-mouth: motives for and consequences of
reading customer articulations on the internet. Int J Electron Commer 2003;8(2):
framework to describe the online anti-branding process; third, we
51–74.
provide a link between anti-branding and brand value and finally, we Hirschman Albert O. Exit, voice and loyalty. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press;
provide an analysis of the content used on anti-brand sites. This research 1970.
documents a negative outcome of brand strength (i.e., greater number of Hoffman Donna L, Novak Thomas P, Venkatesh Alladi. Has the internet become
indispensable? Commun ACM 2004;47(7):37–42.
anti-brand sites and greater use of market speech), which is a Hogg Margaret K, Michell Paul CN. Constellations, configurations and consumption:
contribution to the marketing literature that generally focuses on the exploring patterns of consumer behaviour amongst U.K. shoppers. Adv Consum Res
positive outcomes of brand strength. The larger contribution of this 1997;24:551–7.
Holzer Boris. Political consumerism between individual choice and collective action: social
work is to document the facilitative role of the internet in anti- movements, role mobilization and signalling. Int J Consum Studies 2006;30(5):
consumption. The internet has created an empowered consumer 405–15.
through greater information access, instant publishing power and a Hoy Mariea Grubbs, Andrews Craig J. Entertainment industry ratings disclosures and
the clear and conspicuous standard. J Consum Aff 2006;40(1):117–43.
participatory audience. This allows socially sensitive, ethical and expert Illia Lauria. Passage to cyberactivism: how dynamics of activism change. J Public Aff 2003;3
consumers to launch meaningful anti-consumption campaigns that (4): 326–37.
have visible market impact. Innes Robert. A theory of consumer boycotts under symmetric information and imperfect
competition. Econ J 2006;116(511):355–81.
Future research opportunities abound in this area. First, the focus in Johnson Eric J. Digitizing consumer research. J Consum Res 2001;28(2):331–6.
this paper is on the outcomes of anti-branding rather than the Katz Julie A, Carnahan Aron. Battling the “CompanyNameSucks.com” cyberactivists.
antecedents. Future empirical research must investigate the relationship Intellect Prop Technol Law J 2001;13(3):1–7.
Keller Kevin L. Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity.
between the antecedents and anti-branding. Second, we do not
J Mark 1993;57(1):1-23.
understand the motives of consumer leaders who organize anti-brand Klein Jill Gabrielle, Smith Craig N, John Andrew. Why we boycott: consumer motivation
sites well. Qualitative research techniques (e.g., in-depth interviews, for boycott participation. J Mark 2004;68(3):92-109.
focus groups) might be the starting point in investigating the mindset of Klink Richard R. Creating meaningful brands: the relationship between brand name and
brand mark. Market Lett 2003;14(3):143–57.
these individuals. Third, we need to examine modifications in consumer Kopp Steven W, Suter Tracy A. Trademark strategies online: implications for intellectual
perception, attitude and behavior upon exposure to anti-brand sites property protection. J Public Policy Market 2000;19(1):119–31.
(Woodside and Walser, 2007). Fourth, many online anti-consumption Krishnamurthy Sandeep. A comprehensive analysis of permission marketing. J Comput-
Mediat Commun 2001;6(2) [Available at http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol6/issue2/
movements focus on products rather than brands (e.g., Meatrix, http:// krishnamurthy.html].
www.Meatrix.com and Smoking Sucks, http://smokingsucks.com/). Kucuk S Umit. Negative double jeopardy: the role of anti-brand sites on the internet.
Future research must investigate the relationship between brand-level J Brand Manag 2008;15(3):209–22.
Kucuk S Umit, Krishnamurthy Sandeep. An analysis of consumer power on the internet.
and product-level anti-consumption movements on the internet. Technovation 2007;27(1–2):47–56.
Marcus Hazel, Nurius Paula. Possible selves. Am Psychol 1986;41(9):954–69.
Acknowledgements Marlatt Andrew. Who's the owner of Chasesucks.com and Chasestinks? Three guesses.
internet World; 1998. formerly Web Week, http://iw.com/print/1998/15/in.../
19980615-antidomains.htm.
This study was mainly conducted during the second author's stay Mayzlin Dina, Chevalier Judith. The effect of word of mouth online: online book reviews.
at University of Washington, Bothell. The authors thank the Special J Market Res 2006;43(3):345–54.
Moynagh Michael, Worsley Richard. Tomorrow's consumer: the shifting balance of
Session participants of 2006 AMS Conference in San Antonio, TX and
power. J Consum Behav 2002;1(3):293–301.
Wenyu Dou for their helpful comments and Nisin Lwai, Deanna Nasir Aslihan V. E-consumer complaints about online stores. J Consum Satisf Dissatisf
Godsey and Patricia Mills for their assistance. Complaining Behav 2004;17:68–87.
Nemes Judith. Domain Names Have Brand Impact, vol. 85(12). B to B Chicago; 2000. pp.
20–2.
References Ogilvie Daniel M. The undesired self: a neglected variable in personality research. J Pers
Soc Psychol 1987;52(2):379–85.
Allison Neil K. A psychometric development of a test for consumer alienation from the Oliver Richard L. Satisfaction: a behavioral perspective on the consumer. Columbus OH:
marketplace. J Mark Res 1978;15(4):565–75. McGraw-Hill; 1996.
An Daechun. Advertising visuals in global brands' local websites: a six-country com- Oliver Richard L. Co-producers and co-participants in the satisfaction process: mutually
parison. Int J Advert 2007;26(3):303–32. satisfying consumption. In: Lusch Robert F, Vargo Stephen L, editors. The service-
Bagozzi Richard P, Dholakia Utpal M. Intentional social action in virtual communities. dominant logic of marketing: dialog, debate, and directions. Armonk, NY: M.E.
J Interact Market 2002;16(2):2-21. Sharpe; 2006. pp. 118–27.
Bailey Ainsworth A. Thiscompanysucks.com: the use of the internet in negative consumer- Perreault William D, Leigh Laurence E. Reliability of nominal data based on qualitative
to-consumer articulations. J Market Commun 2004;10(3):169–82. judgments. J Market Res 1989;26(2):135–48.
Banister Emma N, Hogg Margaret K. Mapping the negative self: from ‘so not me’…to Pitt Leyland F, Berthon Pierre R, Watson Richard T, Zinkhan George M. The internet and
‘just not me’. Adv Consum Res 2001;28:242–8. the birth of real consumer power. Bus Horiz 2002;45(4):7-14.
Brokaw Stephen C, Finch James E. The consumer-marketplace interaction model: an Riffe Daniel, Lacy Stephen, Fico Frederick G. Analyzing media messages: using quantitative
investigation of the interrelationships among consumerism, consumer satisfaction, content analysis in research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Elbaum Associates; 2005.
consumer discontent, and alienation. J Market Manag 1995;5(2):1-11. Roper Juliet. Government, corporate or social power? The Internet as a tool in the
Cava Anita. Internet gripe sites: constitutionally protected free speech or cybersquat- struggle for dominance in public policy. J Public Aff 2002;2(3):113–24.
ting? Judges balance the equities to decide. J Acad Mark Sci 2005;33(3):377–9. Sääksjärvi Maria, Saeed Samiee. Nonprice antecedents of consumer preference for
Ehrenberg Andrew, Goodhardt Gerald J, Barwise Patrick T. Double jeopardy revisited. cyber and extension brands. J Interact Market 2007;21(1):22–35.
J Mark 1990;54(3):82–91. Schau H Jensen, Gilly Mary C. We are what we post? Self-presentation in personal web
Feick Lawrence. Latent class models for the analysis of behavioral hierarchies. J Mark space. J Consum Res 2003;30(3):385–404.
Res 1987;24(2):174–86. Singh Jagdip. A typology of consumer dissatisfaction response styles. J Retail 1990;66(1):
Fitzgerald Kate. New domain suffixes rich for profiteers. Advert Age 2000;71(51): 57–99.
58–60. Singh Jagdip, Wilkes Robert E. When consumer complain: a path analysis of the key an-
Friedman Monroe. Consumer Boycotts in the United States, 1970–1980: Contemporary tecedents of consumer complaint response estimates. J Acad Mark Sci 1996;24(4):
Events in Historical Perspective. J Consum Aff 1985;19(1):96-118. 350–65.
1126 S. Krishnamurthy, S.U. Kucuk / Journal of Business Research 62 (2009) 1119–1126

Smith N Craig. Consumer boycotts and consumer sovereignty. Eur J Market 1987;21 Cyberactivism: Online Activism in Theory and Practice. New York, NY: Routledge;
(5):7-19. 2003. pp. 71–95.
Stempel III GH. Content analysis. In: Stempel III GH, Weaver DH, Wilhoit GC, editors. Weber RP. Basic content analysis. 2nd Ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1990.
Mass communication research and theory. Boston: Allyn& Bacon; 2003. pp. 209–19. Wee TTT, Ming MCH. Leveraging on symbolic values and meanings in branding. J Brand
Stolle Dietlind, Hooghe Marc, Micheletti Michele. Politics in the supermarket: political Manag 2003;10(3):208–19.
consumerism as a form of political participation. Int Polit Sci Rev 2005;26(3):245–69. Wolrich Charles. Top corporate hate web sites. Forbes.com; 2005. Available at http://
Thompson Craig J, Rindfleisch Aric, Arsel Zeynep. Emotional branding and the strategic www.forbes.com/home/commerce/2005/03/07/cx_cw_0308hate.html.
value of the Doppelganger brand image. J Mark 2006;70(1):50–64. Woodside Arch G, Walser Martin G. Building strong brands in retailing. J Bus Res 2007;60
Uncles Mark, Ehrenberg Andrew, Hammond Kathy. Patterns of buyer behavior: regu- (1): 1-10.
larities, models, and extensions. Mark Sci 1995;14(3):G71–9 [Part 2]. Yorkston Eric, Menon Geeta. Sound symbolism: phonetic effects of brand names on
Urban Glen L. The emerging era of customer advocacy. Sloan Manage Rev 2004;45 consumer judgments. J Consum Res 2004;31(1):43–51.
(2):77–82. Zarrel Lambert V. Consumer alienation, general dissatisfaction, and consumerism issues:
Urban Glen L, Sultan Fareena, Qualls William J. Placing trust at the center of your in- conceptual and managerial perspectives. J Retail 1980;56(2):3-24.
ternet strategy. Sloan Manage Rev 2000;42(1):39–48.
Vegh Sandor. Classifying the Forms of Online Activism: The Case of Cyberprotests
against the World Bank. In: McCaughey Martha, Ayers Michael D, editors.

S-ar putea să vă placă și