oppositional brand avoidance – a new theoretical approach · a new theoretical approach ... this...

Oppositional Brand Avoidance –

A new theoretical approach

Exposé

Submitted by

Janek Hempel

At the University of Kassel Faculty - International Business Administration

EMBS Department: Business Administration Division: International Business Administration Cohort: EMBS 5th Generation Semester: 3 Kassel, Germany 22nd October 2012

II

Abstract

Oppositional Brand Avoidance –

A new theoretical approach

Keywords: Oppositional brand avoidance; brand avoidance; new approach; Anti-

consumption;

Background: Since 10 years anti-consumption has been gaining more and more importance

in literature. New concepts, such as brand avoidance have been developed to explain why

consumers would not choose a certain brand. Yet, this behavior has never been seen in the

context of other competing brands at the same time. That is now knowledge has been sought

how brand avoidance has positive or negative effects in the consumers mind on his range of

other choices.

Purpose: Consequently the idea of this thesis is to try to find out if a positive effect in the

consumers mind on the other brands can emerge simultaneously with avoiding one initial

brand. This concept shall be termed oppositional brand avoidance analogous to the theory of

oppositional brand loyalty. It shall be explored if this concept exists and if yes, what are the

drivers that promote to manifest it in the consumers mind.

Method: The study that will be conducted in this context will be a qualitative one to find

evidence in the field in which this effect exists. To better understand the perspective of the

consumer and his way of terming such a possible phenomenon, a focus group will be set up to

openly and freely discuss all associations that exist in this regard. It will be tape recorded and

analyzed afterwards. The results will then be used to prepare a semi-structured interview that

is envisioned to be held with a dozen people. In this stage, a slightly more standardized ap-

proach will reveal if people have experienced some kind of oppositional brand avoidance sit-

uation and what has led some to feel like that.

III

List of content

Abstract ................................................................................................................................................................... II

List of content .................................................................................................................................................... III

List of Abbreviations ....................................................................................................................................... IV

List of Figures ..................................................................................................................................................... IV

List of Tables ....................................................................................................................................................... IV

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 1

2. Review of Literature ................................................................................................................................ 2

2.1. Theoretical Background ................................................................................................................ 6

2.2. Status Quo of Literature ................................................................................................................. 7

3. Development of Research Questions ............................................................................................ 10

3.1. Problem and Research Idea ...................................................................................................... 10

3.2. Research Questions and Boundaries .................................................................................... 11

4. Methodology ............................................................................................................................................ 13

5. Preliminary Structure .......................................................................................................................... 14

6. Work Plan .................................................................................................................................................. 15

7. Bibliography ............................................................................................................................................ 16

List of Appendix ............................................................................................................................................... 17

IV

List of Abbreviations

OBA Oppositional Brand Avoidance

List of Figures

Figure 1 -‐ Matrix Brand Loyalty/ Avoidance ....................................................................................... 10

List of Tables

Table 1 -‐ Literature Overview ....................................................................................................................... 2

1

1. Introduction

For many decades the consumption behavior of private households has been researched from

many different angles. For example the concept of brand loyalty has been elaborated to ex-

plain among other things the ‘deeply held commitment to rebuy or repatronize a preferred

product/ service consistently in the future’ (Oliver, 1999, p. 34). Further research has even put

the customer-brand relationship in the context to other brands of the same kind. In detail, a

phenomenon of brand loyalty that has been observed in brand communities is called opposi-

tional brand loyalty. It denotes that the expression of loyalty towards a given brand by also

opposing all competitive brands (Muniz & O’Guinn, 2001, p. 420). This may even lead to

discrediting behavior towards these opposing brand’s consumers (Muniz & Hamer, 2001).

On the other hand the interest of anti-consumption behavior is not as strong in the scientific

realm (Lee, et al., 2009, p. 169). Key concepts have been designed to describe behaviors

against a certain product or brand. For example the idea of consumer resistance talks for in-

stance about negative attitudes towards the currently existing capitalistic system which would

coincide with a decrease of consumption (Penaloza & Price, 1993). Brand avoidance is de-

fined as “the incidents in which consumers deliberately choose to reject a brand” (Lee, Mo-

tion & Conroy, 2009, p. 170). However, until now these patterns of behavior have only been

seen in the direct relation towards a product, brand or service. No continuative thoughts have

been made about consequences regarding the other competing products.

Therefore this paper will investigate how the avoidance of a brand is affecting the consumer’s

attitude towards other products. In particular the question is, if a reciprocal effect of brand

avoidance could lead to the increased affinity of a customer towards other brands of the same

kind. This behavior in question shall be termed in analogy to the above mentioned idea of

oppositional brand loyalty with the name oppositional brand avoidance.

It would mean in practice that the mere avoidance of a given brand would effectuate simulta-

neously positive feelings towards any other given brand of the same kind as a direct cause of

the negative feeling. They are in place to reinforce the opposition towards the initial brand.

2

2. Review of Literature

The following section will examine which literature and theoretical constructs from marketing

science can be used to substantiate the research question posed above. Firstly, the section the-

oretical background will talk about all general ideas and concepts to be applied. In the follow-

ing part, the current state of literature, specifically in the domain of anti-consumption will be

reflected. All the literature which will be used in the following argumentation is resumed in

the following table.

Table 1 -‐ Literature Overview

Topic Title Author Year Journal, Book, etc. Content

Anti-‐Con-‐sumption

An evaluation of strategic re-‐sponses to con-‐sumer boycotts

Ulku Yuksel, Victoria Mryteza

2009

Journal of Business Research, 62, pp. 248-‐259.

> Analyzes the boycotts against certain brands and tries to find out effective counter measurements > It was proven that related and unrelated positive information is positive for brands to recover their image > However discrediting in turn a competitor does not change the situation at all


Anti-‐consumption: An overview and research agenda

Michael S. W. Lee, Karen V. Fernan-‐dez, Michael R. Hyman

2009

Journal of Business Research, 62, pp.145–147.

> Outline of articles being published in a special edi-‐tion of the Journal of Business Research, dedicated to Anti-‐consumption > Sketching which areas in this field of research could be investigated forthcoming


ICAR Conference 2012

Michael S. W. Lee, et al.

2012 Conference paper.

> Many different extended abstracts debating about different arising issues in the field of anti-‐consumption


Purpose and object of anti-‐consumption

Rajesh Iyer, James A. Muncy

2009


> Notes that anti-‐consumption has mostly focused on anti-‐brand. > Therefore focus on the general motivation for anti-‐consumption by first differentiation 4 categories > Then, he is testing how, self-‐consciousness, self-‐actualization and self-‐assertiveness have a positive or negative correlation with 2 types of this matrix (the 4 categories, distinguished by 2 dimensions) proposed by him

3

Anti-‐consump-‐tion

Reprisal, retribu-‐tion and requital: Investigating customer retalia-‐tion

Venessa Funches, Melissa Markley & Lenita Davis

2009

Journal of Business Research, 62, pp. 231–238.

> Outlines retaliatory behavior of customers mostly due to unmet expectations > They describe 4 Motivations for this behavior. Transactional injustice is one of the most common reason and also denote 4 behaviors of retaliation


The rejection of brand hegemony

John G. Cromie, Mike T. Ewing

2009


> Explore the idea of anti-‐brand hegemony on the example of open source software users > See Rejection of Brand Hegemony an act against the Brand or vendor but not as attempt to consume less > It is mostly triggered by a feeling of reduction in consumers' perceived choice, actual choice, product knowledge, search confidence and trust


Underdog con-‐sumption: An exploration into meanings and motives

Lee P. McGin-‐nis, James W. Gen-‐try

2009


> They analyze the meaning of underdog and develop possible motivations for this behavior > They also conclude that underdog support is not always based on opposing the big ones in a system but sometimes simply willing to help the small ones who try hard but do not succeed as much

Brand

Brands and brand equity: definition and management

Lisa Wood 2000

Manage-‐ment Deci-‐sion, 38(9), pp. 662 – 669.

> Defines Brand as well as Brand Equity Management > Gives a thorough overview of the many definitions of brands which are either based on benefits for the company or benefits for the consumer

Brand Avoid-‐ance

Anti-‐consumption and Brand avoidance

Michael S. W. Lee, J Motion, D. Conroy

2009

Journal of Business Research, 62, pp. 169–180.

> Brand avoidance can be clustered in: Experiential avoidance, Identity avoidance, Moral avoidance > Starting to understand the cause of brand avoidance can help to improve brand acceptance

Brand Avoid-‐ance

Brands that we love to hate -‐ An exploration of brand avoidance

Michael, S. W. Lee

2008 Doctoral Thesis.

> Doctoral Thesis exploring and defining the concept of 'Brand Avoidance' > Brand avoidance can be clustered in: Experiential avoidance, Identity avoidance, Moral avoidance

Brand Commu-‐nity

Brand Communi-‐ties and new Product Adop-‐tion: The Influ-‐ence and Limits of Oppositional Loyalty

Scott, A. Thomp-‐son, Rajiv, K. Sinha

2008

Journal of Marketing, 72, pp. 65–80.

> Examines the effects of brand community participa-‐tion and membership duration on the adoption of new products from opposing brands as well as from the preferred brand

4

Brand Commu-‐nity

Brand Communi-‐ty

Albert M. Muniz Jr, Thomas C. O'Guinn

2001

Journal of Consumer Research, 27(4), pp. 412-‐432.

> Find evidence for the existence of brand communi-‐ties > Outline mechanisms and particularities of brand communities > Situate these findings within the broader fields of literature

Brand Commu-‐nity

Religiosity in the abandoned Apple New-‐ton brand com-‐munity

Albert M. Mu-‐niz Jr, Hope J. Schau

2005

Journal of Consumer Research, 31, pp. 737 – 747.

> Research explores the grassroots brand community centered on the abandoned Apple Newton Brand > This study reveals important properties of brand communities and, at a deeper level, speak to the communal nature of religion and the enduring human need for religious affiliation

Brand Commu-‐nity

The Dark Side of Brand Communi-‐ty: Inter-‐Group Stereotyping, Trash Talk, and Schadenfreude

Thomas Hick-‐man, James Ward

2007

Advances in Consumer Research, 34, pp. 314 -‐319.

> Describe “dark” behaviors as inter-‐group stereo-‐typing, “trash talking” rival brand communities, and feeling pleasure at the misfortune of rival brands and their users. > Explore how loyalty to one brand community pro-‐vokes negative views of not only rival brands but their users

Brand Love Brand Love

Rajeev Batra, Aaron Ahuvia, Richard P. Ba-‐gozzi

2012 Journal of Marketing, 76, pp. 1–16.

> Empirical study to prove the concept of brand love > By creating prototype, attributes have been created from the bottom up instead of deriving it from inter-‐personal love!

Brand Love

Some anteced-‐ents and out-‐comes of brand love

Barbara A. Car-‐roll, Aaron C. Ahuvia

2006 Marketing Letters, 17, pp. 79–89.

> Conceptualized more in which way brand satisfac-‐tion and brand love are different from each other > They also investigated the effects that brand love has on consumers behavior. For instances it was prov-‐en that more brand love leads to more brand loyalty and more positive word of mouth

Brand Loyalty

The Chain of Effects from Brand Trust and Brand Affect to Brand Perfor-‐mance: The Role of Brand Loyalty

Arjun Chaudhuri and Morris B. Holbrook

2001

Journal of Marketing, 65(2), pp. 81-‐93.

> Study explores the relationship among brand trust, brand affect, and brand performance out-‐comes (market share and relative price) with an emphasis on understanding the linking role played by brand loyalty > Brand trust and brand affect were each directly related to both purchase and attitudinal loyalty, they were indirectly related to market share and relative price

Brand Loyalty

Brand Loyalty vs. Repeat Purchas-‐ing Behavior

Jacob Jacoby and Da-‐vid B. Kyner

1973

Journal of Marketing Research, 10(1), pp. 1-‐9.

> Examines the difference between brand loyalty and repeated purchase behavior > It is empirically proven that brand loyalty has other underlying dynamics than repeated purchase behavior based on the 6 factor concept elaborated by them

5

Consum-‐er Behav-‐ior

Self-‐Concept in Consumer Be-‐havior: A Critical Review

M. Jo-‐seph Sirgy

1982


> Analyses all consisting self-‐concept theories to that point > Comes up with the idea that there should be a con-‐gruity of the self-‐image and the product image > If this is given, the product is further construct one’s own identity. Products diverging from that are not likely to be consumed

Consum-‐er Re-‐sistance

Adversaries of Consumption: Consumer Movements, Activism, and Ideology

Rob-‐ert V. Kozinets and Jay M. Handel-‐man

2004


> Focuses on consumer movements that seek ideolog-‐ical and cultural change > The results explain amongst others the importance of spiritual and religious identities when fighting e.g. against Nike or GE food


Can Consumers Escape the Mar-‐ket? Emancipa-‐tory Illumina-‐tions from Burn-‐ing Man

Robert V. Kozinets

2002


> Describes and analyzes the anti-‐market event in California called 'Burning Man' > Raises the questions if consumers can really escape the market > He concluded that temporarily this may be possible but not for a long time. Yet, the event helps to trans-‐form the individual in a certain way


The Starbucks Brandscape and Consumers’ (An-‐ti-‐corporate) Experiences of Glocalization

Craig J. Thomp-‐son and Zeynep Arsel

2004


> Has made a study about Starbucks and how the brands impacts local culture. > They argue that beside local shaping of global brands, a global brand exerts some kind of hegemonic influence on the systems > This is symbolized by anti-‐movements of coffee-‐shops which are local but all dwell their identity by being against the main stream star bucks, which thus becomes some kind of general standard...

Dissocia-‐tive Ref-‐erence Groups

I Am Not There-‐fore, I Am: the Role of Avoid-‐ance Products in Shaping Con-‐sumer Behavior

Basil G. Englis, Berry College

1997

Advances in Consumer Research, 24, pp. 61-‐63.

> Note that the self-‐identity is created also via prod-‐ucts. This process does not only include liking certain products but also 'know' which ones not to like > Not consuming has to be defined in non-‐choice and anti-‐choice. The latter one is more important because the deliberate avoiding is given! > When asking students, they could design anti-‐constellation consumption, meaning to list, things they would not consume

Dissocia-‐tive Ref-‐erence Groups

To be or not to be? The influ-‐ence of dissocia-‐tive reference groups on con-‐sumer prefer-‐ences

K White, DW Dahl

2006

Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(4), pp. 404–414.

> The role of dissociative reference groups (i.e., those groups we wish to avoid being associated with) in influencing consumer preferences.

6

Opposi-‐tional Brand Loyalty

Us versus them: Oppositional brand loyalty and the cola wars

Albert M. Mu-‐niz, Lawrence O. Hamer

2001

Advances in Consumer Research, 28, pp. 355-‐361.

>Observation of "Oppositional Brand Loyalty" > Consumer defines by buying some brand AND avoiding other brands > Also discrediting behavior was seen

Product Dissatis-‐faction

Consumer Reac-‐tions to Product Failure: An At-‐tributional Ap-‐proach

Valerie S. Folkes 1984


> The research tries to establish a framework with which one can determine by the causes of the product failure the consumer reaction > The 3 casual dimensions of stability, locus and con-‐trollability are important and can lead to 8 different scenarios depending on the vari. (23) > The 3 causes can explain reactions from 'refunds or apology' deserved towards anger or to even to do nothing (e.g. when own fault)

2.1. Theoretical Background

The main fundamental area of literature that has a rapport with the research question is the

domain of anti-consumption. With the institutionalization of that topic via the foundation of

an International Center of Anti-Consumption Research in 2005 (Lee, Fernandez & Hyman,

2009), the research herein has gained more and more importance. Since that year, also sym-

posiums are held to further advance and share knowledge in this specific domain (Lee, Fer-

nandez & Hyman, 2009). Anti-consumption deals “with reasons against consumption” (Lee,

Fernandez & Hyman, 2009, p. 145) because understanding motivations not to choose a certain

brand is just as valuable as comprehending why it is chosen (Lee, Motion & Conroy, 2009;

Banister and Hogg, 2004). Topics that belong to this domain are e.g. Brand Avoidance (Lee,

Motion & Conroy, 2009), Consumer Resistance (Kozinets & Handelman, 2004), Consumer

Retaliation (Funches, Markley & Davis, 2009) or even seen from another perspective Disso-

ciative Reference Groups (White and Dahl, 2006).

On the other hand the theoretical concept of brands and all their surrounding theories play an

important role in this paper. A brand according to Philip Kotler and Gary Armstrong (2009):

“is a name, term, sign, symbol, or design, or a combination of these, that identifies the maker

or seller of a product or service.” By putting this idea in bigger contexts, concepts such as

Brand Love (Batra, Ahuvia & Bagozzi, 2012), Brand Loyalty (Jacoby & Kyner, 1973) or Op-

positional Brand Loyalty (Muniz and Hammer, 2001) and Brand Community (Muniz and

O’Guinn, 2001) have emerged.

7

2.2. Status Quo of Literature

To start off with the review of current literature all aspects of anti-consumption will be re-

garded in the beginning.

The term brand avoidance was firstly used by Olivia et al (1992) in their paper: A Catastrophe

Model for Developing Service Satisfaction Strategies. In their understanding it was a syno-

nym for switching from one brand to another. Later on, Michael S. W. Lee (2007) explored

this topic further in his doctoral dissertation “Brands we love to hate: An Exploration of

Brand Avoidance”. He was investigating what reasons can cause Brand avoidance and came

up with the four topics of Experiential, Identity, Deficit-Value and Moral Avoidance. This

classification and the research behind it build a good base to firstly differentiate the different

causes that lead to a brand avoidance in order to secondly late examine if also a phenomenon

like oppositional brand avoidance can be remarked.

Experiential Avoidance emerges due to negative experience that the respective customer has

had with the product or service. This situation has been researched many times before. In a

study conducted by Folkes (1984) for instance a model was developed to determine by the

cause of the product failure the expectable consumer reaction. In general the three causal di-

mensions, namely stability, locus and controllability have been set up to depict the origin of

the product failure. According to which of these dimensions is involved generally customer

response vary according to 8 different facets.

Identity avoidance is based on the psychological construct of Self-Concept & Consumer Cul-

ture Theory. The idea following that train of thought is that consumers choose products to

construct their own identities (Arnould and Thompson, 2005). This insight is also shared by

the research of Sirgy (1982), having argued that only those products with an image being in

congruity with the consumer’s self-concept are likely to be purchased. Moreover, the fact that

a certain reference group is consuming a certain product can lead to the effect that other indi-

viduals are avoiding this product in order to be associated with the first mentioned group. The

theory framing the just describe case is called amongst others Dissociative Reference Group

(White and Dahl, 2006; Englis and College, 1997).

Deficit avoidance entitles all cases in which a non-kept promise motivates the consumer to

not to repurchase a given product (Lee, 2007).

8

Lastly the category of moral avoidance describes resentments of the customer against big

multinational and thereby non-local companies, monopolists or simply the capitalistic system

in general (Lee, 2007, pp. 130-168; Lee, Motion & Conroy, 2009, pp.175-178). In this do-

main also other scientists have conducted research. In their article The Starbucks Brandscape

and Consumers’ (Anticorporate) Experiences of Glocalization Thomson and Arsel (2004)

undertook a study about Starbucks and how the brand impacts local culture. They argue that

besides local shaping of global brand (Glocalization) a global brand exerts some kind of heg-

emonic influence on each country. In fight against this system an anti-movement against Star-

bucks has been researched. Another phenomenon of consumer resistance which is motivated

by moral ideals is the Californian festival Burning Man. Robert V. Kozinets (2002) researches

this event by posing the questions if consumers can really escape the market. He explains the

incitement of the participants observes their practices and finally comes to the conclusion, that

only temporarily the market can be avoided entirely. As consequence of consumer resistance

customer can decide collectively to not purchase a certain brand anymore until a certain

change by the company has been effected. Friedman (1985) was one of the authors exploring

consumer boycotts in the United States and defined it as: “an attempt by one or more parties

to achieve certain objectives by urging individual consumers to refrain from making selected

purchases in the marketplace” (p. 97).

Another field of interest in the area of anti-consumption is Consumer Retaliation. It deals

explicitly with consumer behavior that results in cost/ loss for the company, consumption

prevention, boycott and purchasing slow down or Exit, Voice and Betrayal (Funches, Markely

and Davis, 2009, p. 233). The theoretical concept behind it can be very fruitful for this master

thesis, because consumer retaliation is just another way of how to express brand avoidance.

The clear difference is that the repercussions are only affecting the brand avoided and no oth-

er brands as it will be researched in this paper.

Until now all current literature that belongs to the rubric of anti-consumption has been illumi-

nated. The following part will therefore look all other theories which stand in relation with the

brand and with the paper’s topic.

As shown and explained on page 2, brand loyalty occurs when consumers are being devoted

to one specific brand. Jacoby and Kyner made a study in 1973 to distinguish this comport-

ment from the mere repeat of purchasing. They conceptualized brand loyalty to be: “…(1) the

biased (i.e., nonrandom), (2) behavioral response (i.e., purchase), (3) expressed over

9

time, (4) by some decision-making unit, (5) with respect to one or more alternative brands

out of a set of such brands, and (6) is a function of psychological (decision-making, eval-

uative) processes” (Jacoby and Kyner, 1973, p. 2).

Following these and other considerations, Muniz and Hamer (2001) observed in brand com-

munities the phenomenon of oppositional brand loyalty. This idea firstly suggests, that: “con-

sumers would define their product category preferences not only be what they did consumer,

but also by what they did not consume” (Muniz and Hamer, 2001, p. 256). Secondly, con-

sumers depicting that behavior “would state their opposition to the competing brand and initi-

ate playful rivalries with users of the competing brand” (Muniz and Hamer, 2001, p. 256).

This manner is crucial to this paper, since the authors wants to prove the same conduct of be-

havior only in the opposite way. The second part of the behavior described by Muniz and

Hamer has been research in more detail by Muniz and Schau (2005) which term the discredit-

ing comportment of brand rivalry “trash talk” and also introduce the aspect of schadenfreude

as one emotion felt by consumers in this context.

Since this body of thought arises always in the context of groups, the base of literature for this

paper will also include concepts and insights of brand communities which are described as “ a

specialized, non-geographically bound community, based on a structured set of social rela-

tionships among admirers of a brand” (Muniz and O’Guinn, 2001).

Lastly, despite of (oppositional) brand loyalty, the idea of brand love could be of interest. By

mirroring reasons for and the feeling of brand love, the authors might find other fruitful ideas

to underpin his concept. Brand Love has been subject to much different research, but only

recently marketing experts were daring to construct this concept from the bottom up without

relying on concepts of interpersonal love from psychology (Batra, Ahuvia & Bagozzi, 2012).

10

3. Development of Research Questions

In this chapter the problem of this master thesis will be explained in detail and also the contri-

bution of this research for the scientific realm will be outlined. Secondly, multiple research

questions will be developed and the boundaries to that research will be set.

3.1. Problem and Research Idea

As already stated in the introduction, oppositional brand avoidance shall describe the recipro-

cal effect of what oppositional brand loyalty is describing. It would mean that in order to

demonstrate opposition to a given avoided brand, the customer will feel gratification and sat-

isfaction when purchasing another brand. The purchase is so to say partially motivated by the

feeling of ‘getting-back’ at the avoided brand by not consuming it. However, this incident has

to be separated very strictly from mere brand switching due to disconfirmation of the ex-

pected product benefits, for it constitutes no emotion of ‘getting-back’ at some brands. The

concept has already been expressed in an interpersonal context with the article called ‘My

enemy’s enemy is my friend’ (Aronson and Cope, 1968).

In order to conceptualize this idea better, the following matrix (see Figure 1 on the next page)

shall help to elucidate the idea in a more graphic manner. As to be seen in the first square

brand loyalty is the positive feeling towards one certain product, whereas square 2 is the nega-

tive feeling towards one brand (brand avoidance). When the positive feeling is set in the con-

text of other competing products it could potentially lead to oppositional brand loyalty. There-

fore the same idea shall be researched for the concept of brand avoidance.

This research would be a valuable contribution for the scientific world because it would add

to the existing literature of anti-consumption by exhibiting a new phenomenon of brand

avoidance. There are already other perspectives taken on anti-consumption and its effects

such as boycotting or consumer retaliation. Oppositional brand avoidance would blend into

these theories well since it is evoked by the same cause as already described in current litera-

ture and because it displays to some extents the same traits of behavior as consumer reprisal

for instance. Yet, by beholding this problem form another angle and by putting it in a frame

11

together with brand loyalty, oppositional brand loyalty and brand avoidance it would create

still create a new concept.

Figure 1 -‐ Matrix Brand Loyalty/ Avoidance

Positive Feeling

Negative Feeling

Product Brand Loyalty Brand Avoidance

Product and its compet-‐

ing ones

Oppositional Brand Loyalty

In its core positive and towards others negative

Oppositional Brand Avoid-‐ance

In its core negative but to others posi-‐tive

3.2. Research Questions and Boundaries

According to the problem and research idea elucidated before the fundamental question is:

RQ1: Does the phenomenon of oppositional brand avoidance exist?

Of course this is a very general question, but it is crucial to establish the concept itself.

As mentioned before oppositional brand avoidance shall be clearly distinguished from normal

brand avoidance that leads to simple product switching. Therefore, some factors have to exist

that decide if mere brand avoidance will manifest itself or if this avoidance will also have

oppositional (positive) repercussion for the other competing brand. Firstly these feelings or

factors can be different from those ones which are felt during normal brand avoidance. The

second research question therefore is:

RQ2: Which feelings (not felt during normal brand avoidance) evoke oppositional brand

avoidance?

However, due to a higher or lower intensity of certain emotions/ feeling oppositional brand

avoidance can be triggered as well. Consequently the research question number three is:

12

RQ3: Which feelings (also felt during normal brand avoidance) increase/ decrease the likeli-

hood of oppositional brand avoidance?

Purchase scenarios can vary quite strongly depending on the context and the goods or services

bought. For instance the degree of involvement changes immensely between fashion products

or cleaning products. Hence, the type of product can also be a decisive factor. Consequently

the fourth question is:

RQ4: Which types of products are more eligible to show potential for oppositional brand

avoidance?

Moreover, the concept of brand avoidance as elaborated by Lee (2007) classifies the causes

into certain categories. Building on these it could be assumed that oppositional brand avoid-

ance (OBA) is more likely to occur from certain causes, whereas others rarely end in this

phenomenon. Thus, the fifth question is:

RQ5: Do different causes of brand avoidance have different likelihood to result in OBA?

RQ5.1: If yes, which ones?

Lastly, OBA could exist for only a small amount of time or could last very long. There is until

now, no idea on how it behaves in the dimension of time. Thus, the sixth and last question is:

RQ5: Is OBA stable over time?

Naturally, since the idea of oppositional brand avoidance is a new one, the research will have

some kind of explorative nature. This means that observations/ explorations will firstly be

necessary in order to prove the concept’s existence. As already alluded to in RQ4, the pro-

ducts and services in today’s world are very vast. In order to still attain interpretable results,

the author has decided to limit the research only to the field of consumer goods. Thereby any

kind of service is excluded. Also the purchase of houses or appartments, boats, planes and

other extraordinary long-lasting products shall be not be taken into consideration.

13

4. Methodology

The phenomenon that the author wants to exhibit is a novel one. Therefore, it is likely that the

concept will constitute a grounded theory, based on the data that has been collected. To au-

thor’s mind, a qualitative study would serve the purpose of exploration much better than a

quantitative one, because measuring an unknown concept with unknown attributes is not fea-

sible. With the objective to principally denote the idea better, a focus group is planned to

discuss loose ideas that can be later on be assimilated into more definite terms who’s under-

standing by the target sample is guaranteed. In the second in-depth interviews will further the

knowledge of OBA. These will still be non-structured questions to allow flexibility which in

turn is enhancing theoretical sensitivity (Glaser, 1978).

FOCUS GROUP:

• Sampling: December 2012, Group discussions with 4-6 participants

• Intervention Materials/ Data Collection: Ideas from the thesis will be discussed and

recorded. Following the material will be analysed to correctly term and describe the

phenomenon to be studied.

• Measurement Instruments: Camera and Notes taken

• Procedures: Explain my ideas first and then ask if the participants know the pheno-

menon. Go into more depth into their suggestions and ideas

• Data Analysis: qualitative techniques to be used such as thematic analysis, coding

INTERVIEWS:

• Sampling: January 2013, with 12 participants

• Intervention Materials/ Data Collection: Intervies will be held by one on one inter-

views which will be voice recorded

• Measurement Instruments: Voice recorder and Notes taken

• Procedures: Present OBA and ask to think of a case. Then explore the case to answer

all of my research questions

• Data Analysis: qualitative techniques to be used such as coding, individual case stu-

dies,displays

14

5. Preliminary Structure

Abstract List of content List of Abbreviations List of Figures List of Tables 1. Introduction

1.1. Importance of Topic 1.2. Research Problem and Objectives of Thesis 1.3. Contributions 1.4. Structure of Thesis

2. Existing Theory 2.1. Definition of Brand, Avoidance, Oppositional 2.2. Brand and Brand Loyalty 2.3. Brand Love 2.4. Oppositional Brand Loyalty 2.5. Brand Avoidance

3. Research Methodology 3.1. Grounded Theory 3.2. Methods and Procedures

3.2.1. Focus Group 3.2.1.1. Setup 3.2.1.2. Execution 3.2.1.3. Results

3.2.2. Semi-Structured Interviews 3.2.2.1. Setup 3.2.2.2. Execution 3.2.2.3. Results

3.2.3. Summary of Results 3.2.4. Concerns of Validity

4. Implications for companies 5. Conclusion, Limitations, Future Research 6. Bibliography 7. Appendix

15

6. Work Plan

Week Phase Objective 01.10. – 31.10.2012 Research Phase Discussion of Exposé 01.11. – 31.11.2012 Theory Phase Creation of the theoretic part

of the Thesis 01.12. – 31.12.2012 Methodology Development of Question-‐

naire and other tools 01.01. – 31.01.2013 Analyzing Phase Execution of Survey and other

Observations 01.02. – 31.02.2013 Evaluation Phase Evaluating the results ob-‐

tained 01.03. – 31.03.2013 Finalization Phase Finalizing Master Thesis

16

7. Bibliography

Arnould, E. J., & Thompson, C. J. (2005). Consumer Culture Theory (CCT): Twenty Years of Research. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(4), pp. 868-‐882.

Aronson, E., & Cope, V. (1968). My enemy's enemy is my friend. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8(1), pp. 8-‐12.

Banister, E. N., & Hogg, M. K. (2004). Negative symbolic consumption and consumers’ drive for self-‐esteem: The case of the fashion industry. European Journal of Marketing, 38(7), pp. 850 -‐ 868.

Batra , R., Ahuvia, A., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2012). Brand Love. Journal of Marketing, 76(March 2012), pp. 1-‐16.

Englis, B. G., & College, B. (1997). To be or not to be? The influence of dissociative reference groups on consumer preferences. Advances in Consumer Research, 24, pp. 61-‐63.

Folkes, V. S. (1984). Consumer Reactions to Product Failure: An Attributional Approach. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(4), pp. 398-‐409.

Friedman, M. (1985). Consumer Boycotts in the United States, 1970-‐1980: Contemporary Events in Historical Perspective. Journal of Consumer Affiars, 19, pp. 96-‐117.

Funches, V., Markely, M., & Davis, L. (2009). Reprisal, retribution and requital: Investigating customer retaliation. Journal of Business Research, 62, pp. 231-‐238.

Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: advances in the methodology of grounded theory. San Francisco: University of Carlifornia.

Hickman, T., & Ward, J. (2007). The Dark Side of Brand Community: Inter-‐Group Stereotyping, Trash Talk, and Schadenfreude. Advances in Consumer Research, 34, pp. 314-‐319.

Jacoby, J., & Kyner, D. B. (1973). Brand Loyalty vs. Repeat Purchasing Behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 10(1), pp. 1-‐9.

Kotler, P., & Armstrong, G. (2009). Principles of Marketing (13. revised ed.). London, et al.: Prentice Hall.

Kozinets, R. V. (2002). Can Consumers Escape the Market? Emancipatory Illuminations from Burning Man. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(1), pp. 20-‐38.

Kozinets, R. V., & Handelman, J. M. (2004). Adversaries of Consumption: Consumer Movements, Activism, and Idealogy. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(3), pp. 691-‐704.

17

Lee, M. S. (2007). Brands we love to hate: An Exploration of Brand Avoidance. Retrieved December 20, 2012, from (Doctoral Dissertation): https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/handle/2292/2556

Lee, M. S., Fernandez, K. V., & Hyman, M. R. (2009). Anticonsumption: An overview and research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 62, pp. 145-‐147.

Lee, M. S., Motion, J., & Conroy, D. (2009). Anti-‐consumption and brand avoidance. Journal of Business Research, 69, pp. 169-‐180.

Muniz, A. M., & Hamer, L. O. (2001). Us Versus Them: Oppositional Brand Loyalty and the Cola Wars. Advances in Consumer Research, 28, pp. 355-‐361.

Muniz, A. M., & O'Guinn, T. C. (2001, March). Bramd Community. Journal of Consumer Reserach, 27(4), pp. 412-‐432.

Oliva, T. A., & et, a. (1992). A Catastrophe Model for Developing Service Satisfaction Strategies. Journal of Marketing, 56(3), pp. 83-‐95.

Oliver, R. L. (1999, Vol 63.). Whence Consumer Loyalty? Journal of Marketing, pp. 33-‐44.

Penaloza, L., & Price, L. L. (1993). Consumer Resistance: A conceptual overview. Advances in consumer research, 20, pp. 123-‐128.

Sirgy, J. M. (1982). Self-‐Concept in Consumer Behavior: A Critital Review. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(3), pp. 287-‐300.

Thompson, C. J., & Arsel, Z. (2004). The Starbucks Brandscape and Consumers’ (Anticorporate) Experiences of Glocalization. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(3), pp. 631-‐642.

White, K., & Dahl, D. W. (2006). To be or Not be? The influence of dissociative reference groups on consumer preferences. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(4), pp. 404-‐414.

List of Appendix

----

oppositional brand avoidance – a new theoretical approach · a new theoretical approach ... this...

Documents