Anti brand!

Branding paradigm has changed and consumers no longer accept brands passively (Dalli,
Romani, & Gistri, 2006). The concept of negative consumer-brand relationships is not new and
negative relationships can arise from a formerly positive one (Fournier, 1998; Thomson, Whelan,
& Johnson, 2012). Previous psychology literature explains that most people can describe
experiences, emotions and outcomes as good or bad. Furthermore, negative events will play a
stronger role in the human’s life than positive events, because at a neurological processing level,
brain responses for bad actions are stronger and last longer, resulting in superior recall for
misbehaviours (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Finkenauer, & Vohs, 2001).

Authors have investigated negative relationships in several domains, such as brand

avoidance (Lee, Motion, & Conroy, 2009), brand aversion (Park, Eisingerich, & Park, 2013),
anti-brand activism(Romani, Grappi, Zarantonello, & Bagozzi, 2015), anti-consumption
(Chatzidakis & Lee, 2012; Cherrier, 2009; Dalli et al., 2006; Hogg, Banister, & Stephenson,
2009; Lee, Motion, et al., 2009), brand dislike (Dalli et al., 2006), brand divorce (Sussan, Hall,
& Meamber, 2012), and more recently, brand hate (Grégoire, Tripp, & Legoux, 2009; Hegner,
Fetscherin, & Delzen, 2017; Zarantonello, Romani, Grappi, & Bagozzi, 2016).

The consumer culture perspective allows scepticism towards brands (Kozinets &
Handelman, 2004), especially when including high switching costs, a local monopoly situation,
risk aversion, social pressure, ignorance, inertia and market constraints or barriers (Alba & Lutz,
2013). Abuses of power (Dalli et al., 2006) and disregard of consumerism may give way to
consumers’ frustration (Alba & Lutz, 2013).
Interestingly, brands are one of the most valuable and influential communication tools for
companies (Kucuk, 2010). Moreover, at this communication level, if people who are happy
about their relationships express them with positive verbal and nonverbal behaviours, contrarily,
those who are 5 unhappy will proceed the opposite way (Baumeister et al., 2001). Such
behaviours are relevant to this study since bad relationships can have harmful effects on the
brand and can influence other consumers.
Consequently, people are more likely to share negative experiences or complaint reviews
in social media (Grégoire et al., 2009), giving consumers more power over companies (Dalli et
al., 2006) and the opportunity to fight injustices (Hoffmann & Lee, 2016). In this sense, the
evolution of the available tools for consumers in the online environment (e.g., Facebook),
especially when contacting with brand profiles, has great impact in visibility and complaining
(Fournier & Alvarez, 2013; Hoffmann & Lee, 2016).

.
 Brand Hate
Brand Hate is often driven by consumer’s negative experiences with brands, which leads
them to complain (e.g. negative word-of-mouth) and engage in hostile activities to cause harm to
the brand (Barger, Peltier, & Schultz, 2016), (e.g. anti-brand communities). Therefore, the
conceptual model of brand hate (Zarantonello et al., 2016) is divided in two groups, namely (1)
active brand hate and the (2) passive brand hate.
The active and direct components comprise anger and contempt/disgust and the passive
components, which aggregates emotions related to fear, disappointment, shame and
dehumanization – and imply more active behaviours.
Previous frameworks expose three possible antecedents for brand hate, such as (1)
dissatisfaction related to a product or service based on negative past experiences, (2) associations
and impressions of the brand and their users, and (3) corporate social performance that is against
the values of the consumer (Bryson, Atwal, & Hultén, 2013). The last two aspects can also be
presented as symbolic incongruity and ideological incompatibility, which have the strongest
influence on brand hate (Hegner et al., 2017).
Moreover, those aspects are all significant, majorly because negative experiences affect
actual consumers and the remaining determinants can affect both consumers and non-consumers
(Hegner et al., 2017). Nevertheless, brands should verify the degree of loyalty and commitment
of the consumer, since more severe cases should be first dealt with. Interestingly, when loyal
consumers feel betrayed, they may easily become haters, turning into threats to brand equity
(Hegner et al., 2017).

Anti-brand Communities
The anti-brand and anti-consumption movements are assumed by previous authors as
related constructs in the sense that one can create and/or aggravate the other (Iyer & Muncy,
2009; Lee, Motion, et al., 2009).
Anti-branding is the active rejection of brand behaviours (Dessart et al., 2016) and is
usually seen in the form of communities with common visions of consumer injustice, wishing to
contest corporate transgressions (Hollenbeck & Zinkhan, 2006, 2010; Kozinets & Handelman,
2004). Activists usually perceive a brand’s strategy driven by internal benefits (e.g. profits)
rather than external interests, such as benefits for consumers (Hollenbeck & Zinkhan, 2010). In
summary, members of 10 those communities pursue economic, political and cultural changes in
relation to a specific brand (Hollenbeck & Zinkhan, 2010).
Anti-brand actions can take place both online and offline and usually target global
brands, trying to impact their brand equity and reputation (Krishnamurthy & Kucuk, 2009;
Kucuk, 2008; Romani et al., 2015), especially because they represent long term commitments to
reject specific brands (Dessart et al., 2016), becoming market activists (Dessart et al., 2016; Iyer
& Muncy, 2009). Individuals in antibrand communities have a sense of belonging and
identification both with the community and the other members. In this sense, social approval is a
decisive factor for influencing belonging in the community (Dessart et al., 2016). In fact,
communities must provide an environment where consumers may create their own meanings and
practices while developing their individual identities (Hollenbeck & Zinkhan, 2010)

Therefore, authors identified three social markers that are present in brand communities,
respectively (1) consciousness of kind, (2) shared rituals and traditions and (3) moral
responsibility (Brogi, 2014; Muñiz & O'Guinn, 2001). The first community marker –
consciousness of kind – is related to identity theory and is what will drive members to feel
connected to one group instead of other. The second community marker, shared rituals and
traditions is related to the histories and experiences that members share with each other, closing
even more the circle of relationships and connecting values and behaviours. Lastly, moral
responsibility represents the third community marker and relates with members integrating new
users into the community, for example (Brogi, 2014; Muñiz & O'Guinn, 2001; Zaglia, 2013).
Companies should understand that consumer-brand relationships don’t end when consumers stop
buying and that those relationships may continue in the form of offends (Johnson et al., 2011).
Usually, consumers negative feelings towards these brands aggravate when ethical and moral
consumers concerns are involved, creating the need to harm or even eliminate the brand (Romani
et al., 2015). Furthermore, the dissolution or failing of self-relevant relationships can have a
significant negative impact on a person’s self-definition and emotional well-being (e.g. shame,
embarrassment, insecurity) and may predict anti-brand actions (Johnson et al., 2011

Therefore, social media is a low-cost amplifier of information to a large audience (Brogi,

2014; Krishnamurthy & Kucuk, 2009; Kucuk, 2008). In fact, online messages are easy to diffuse
and their audience is expanding considerably (de Campos Ribeiro et al., 2018; Zaglia, 2013).
Social media allow users to interact, share stories, pictures and videos and so on. For
example, the possibility to “share”, “like” and even react on Facebook represent the social
nature of online relationships (Brogi, 2014). Even though in the case of online communities,
members interaction is mostly computer mediated rather than face-to-face, authors still
believe they share social identity and consciousness of kind (Palazón & Sicilia, 2008).
Also, the public nature of these platforms allows internet users not only to express
themselves but also to read negative feedbacks from other consumers, which may affect their
opinion about products and services they may be considering (Balaji et al., 2016; de Campos
Ribeiro et al., 2018; Muñiz & O'Guinn, 2001; Popp et al., 2016). Also, negative word-of-mouth
has greater credibility in this environment, and is also considered to be more trustworthy
than brand generated content (Kucuk, 2008).

In accordance, online consumers seek speech equality (Krishnamurthy & Kucuk, 2009;
Kucuk, 2008, 2014) and are described in the literature as more participative, resistant and active
(Dessart et al., 2016; Kucuk, 2008). Therefore, consumer empowerment is a consequence for
consumer generated antibranding (Kucuk, 2010) and can be classified into four groups: (1)
experts, who pursue first ranking brands and usually have better market knowledge; (2) symbolic
haters, who’s goal are last ranking brands and often believe in word-of-mouth and rumours; (3)
complainers, who target brands that range between the top and the middle of rankings and
frequently focus in service or product failure; and finally (4) opportunists, who pursue brands
inconsistently positioned at the bottom of rankings and believe scandals on media and social
news

.
The Internet provides a place where anti-brand consumers can connect with one another.
Virtual communities involve a combination of virtual interaction, social imagination, and
identity. “They may be distinguished from physical communities in that virtual communities
extend the range of community, and individuals can tailor their personal communities”
(Shumar and Renninger 2002, 2)

The web 2.0 to exchange product information (Lee, Parkand Han, 2008) has transformed
traditional word-of-mouth into electronic word-of-mouth. Since electronic word of mouth is
independent of marketers’ selling intents (Lee & Youn, 2009), it is considered to be more
trustworthy and credible (Bone 1995; Bickart & Schindler, 2001) Consumer activism has paved
in its way and consumers are not afraid of expressing their concerns and resistance to brands for
their questionable quality and corporate practices

The most obvious reason of forming an anti-brand community on the

web was found to be the inability of the brand to satisfy the customers on
various parameters listed below:
Table 3: Key Reasons of Anti-Brand Community Formation

1. Functional/Experiential dissatisfaction
2. Self-Brand distance
3. Ethical disagreement
4. Hatred for competing brand
5. Value deficiency
http://www.aims.org.in/doc_files/AJM_Journal_latest_issue.pdf#page=99
 .1. Functional/Experiential dissatisfaction The product is at the heart of brand. Designing and
delivering a product that satisfies the customers’ needs and wants is at the zenith of a successful
marketing. Hence to please the customers and to create a loyal customer base, a brand needs to meet
the customers’ needs if not delight them (Lee, 2007). Undesirable experience that the customers have
with the product or service makes them create and be a member of anti-brand online communities
(Hempel, 2013).

2. Self-Brand distance The psychological self of an individual is a person’s unique identity.

Consumers buy and own brands which they believe bridge in the gap between their real self and the
desired self (Aaker, 1997; Parker, 2009). On the other hand, people also select brands to avoid
undesired stereotypes. Put in other words consumers might more likely judge their well-being in
relation to how distant they are from their most undesired self. Hence, undesired self can be considered
to explain the antibrand community formation related attitudes (Bosnjak and Brand, 2008).

3. Ethical disagreement Of the many themes, some suggest that some members join the anti-
brand communities for they believe in the brand being morally irresponsible and unethical. However,
distinct these themes might be, the common defining artifacts in all of these themes were found to be
that these brands were perceived as being oppressive, unethical, and potentially harmful to the wider
world; as a result, the consumer wished not only to avoid these brands and but also showed their
disconfirmation with the brands by creating or joining anti-brand community for moral reasons
(Bhattacharya and Elsbach, 2002).

4. Hatred for competing brand Brand loyalty can be referred to as a consumer’s attachment or
devotion to a brand (Aaker, 1991). Consumers express their loyalty to a brand through a variety of ways.
Consumers might express their loyalty in social settings by actively defending and promoting their brand
as superior to a particular competitive brand. Hence, loyal users of a brand may express their brand
loyalty by consciously opposing competing brands. Some themes were identified on the same lines while
analyzing the selected anti-brand communities.

5. Value deficiency Value deficiency can also be a reason for forming anti-brand community.
Feeling of value deficiency is motivated by a perception that the brand promise is simply inadequate
in terms of the individual’s utilitarian requirements. Simply put, the brand is perceived to be deficient
in value (Parasuraman and Grewal, 2000).

Modus operandi of anti-brand communities

Support function to achieve shared purpose/goal: One of the many reasons why anti-
brand communities are formed was found to be to create a social platform, where members could
channelize their actions and energies towards the accomplishment of the stated objectives/goal.
With the main objective being able to contribute towards the betterment of society, moral
obligations of the members stay the top priority (Muniz and O’Guinn, 2001). Community
members collectively address matters of right and wrong in regard to how a brand should act as a
responsible citizen. Within each of the three anti-brand communities studied, a common entity
challenged community members’ view of how a corporation should function in the market place.
In response, moral systems were challenged and a common call to action was felt amongst
members

Moral/emotional support: Members of the community share some experiences in

common that motivates them to create/join anti-brand communities. Community members
comment on the posts they feel connected with while explaining their own experiences thereby
emotionally supporting the other community members. This also transforms the community to
a large family operating on the internet. People seek comfort by discussing what they went
through and get emotional support in turn. Members receiving emotional support in the
community are more likely to remain in the community for a longer period of time as compared
to members receiving just informational support (Gilbert and Karahalios, 2009)

Entertainment:
The members participating in the various activities on anti-brand communities can be
segmented into influencers, active and passive members. There were members who influence
other members in the community. These members can be called as leaders. High activity may not
be an indicator of high influence in the blogosphere (Agarwal et al., 2008) and high popularity
does not necessarily imply influence in Twitter (Romero et al., 2011). Bringing positivity in the
community, answering members’ concerns effectively by posting messages that contain certain
type of support (informational or emotional) may be rather an indicator of influence. Somewere
there just to keep themselves informed and updated by visiting the communities once in a while
or to like and share the content posted. This might be because of the interesting and
informational content shared on these anti-brand communities by the active users and
administrators which can be categorized in the forms like:
1. Jokes These are the funny sarcastic jokes crafted around various situations the brand is
facing. People enjoy reading these jokes and also contribute to make the conversation interesting.
While others simply keep liking the content without actually participating in the conversation for
they find this content interesting and likeable.
2. Memes A meme is “an idea, behavior, or style that spreads from person to person
within a culture” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). An Internet meme may take the form of an
image, hyperlink, video, website, or hash tag. It may be just a word or phrase, including an
intentional misspelling. They essentially are interesting and witty and have a huge pass along
value.
3. Interesting facts/figures- Negative Brand Knowledge repositories Since the anti-brand
community and its members keep posting interesting facts and figures about the brand, the
community catches many eye balls. This way the anti-brand community works as a negative
brand knowledge repository which is shared amongst the members to make it viral
 "Data analysis revealed four distinct reasons why anti-brand communities from: 1) to
provide a social community comprised of members with common moral obligation, 2) to
provide a support network to achieve common goals, 3) to provide a way of coping with
workplace difficulties, and 4) to provide a resource hub for taking action."  (Hollenbeck
and Zinkhan, 2006)

Brand-related communities: a growing field of interest

http://www.atiner.gr/papers/BUS2012-0337.pdf

Members of a community are bound by a common sentiment (Tönnies, 1963), which

derives from communal action and open discourses (Melluci, 1996; Delanty, 2003). This feeling
of belonging is based on voluntarism and community affiliation, is now viewed as a conscious
and reflexive process that members choose to engage in (Blanchot, 1988; Maffesoli, 1996;
Veloutsou and Moutinho, 2009), whereas older perceptions of communities considered them as
non-chosen entities that members were born into (Tönnies, 1963).
Community structure is constituted of a set of social relationships among members
(König, 1968). These interpersonal relationships are increasingly communicative and based
on information sharing (Habermas, 1984 and 1987; Castells, 1996, 1997 and 1998). They bring
people together around a shared focus, concern or goal (Tönnies, 1963; Calhoun, 1983), which is
the focal brand in brand-related communities. Brands are at the center of the community-based
relationships. Relationships with like-minded consumers are influential on brand relationship and
loyalty behavior (Bagozzi and Dholakia, 2006).
Community members create and negotiate a common cultural and dynamic
meaning through various forms of rituals, practices and symbols (Cohen, 1985; Melluci,
1996). These forms of collective action allow community members to achieve self-expression
(Melluci, 1996) and gain control in the brand value creation process. The level of freedom of
expression influences brand loyalty, equity and commitment
 file:///C:/Users/Lilia%20Racila/Downloads/Dark_Side_of_Consumer_Behavior_Brand_Hat.pdf

Aggarwal (2004) has shown that the relationships between consumers and brands are
guided by the relationship norms. Two types of norms, e.g. communal relationship and exchange
relationship norms, are followed in the relationship between consumers and brands (Ghani &
Tuhin, 2018; Ghani & Tuhin, 2016). Violation of these norms causes the loss of relationship
between consumers and brands (Ghani &Tuhin, 2016). This indicates if a brand fails to maintain
communal or exchange relationship norms then the relationship between the consumer and the
brand deteriorates or comes to an end. Moreover, brand Attachment-Aversion model of Park et
al., (2013) confirmed that when bad things happen with brands or negative past experiences with
brand causes consumers feel negatively. This negative feeling causes consumers to hate a brand.
Psychologists have identified hate as an emotion (Zarantonello et al., 2016) which include “rage,
disgust, envy, exasperation” and others (Shaver, Schwartz, Kirson, & O'connor, 1987). Though
hate includes different types of emotions, it is aroused from violation of individual and
communal rights, threats to people, liberty and well-being (Sternberg, 2003). Fitness and
Fletcher (1993) attributed moral violation, when subject is unsuported, badly treated or
humiliated as a cause of hate. Further, Aumer-Ryan and Hatfield (2007) stated unappealing
personality sparks hate behavior. Other reasons include object of gossips, feeling hurt, being
disrespected, betrayed, abused or physically attacked, and perceived inequality (Zarantonello et
al., 2016).
Negative Past Experience and Brand Hate One of the reasons of consumer not
purchasing a product is an anti-choice situation (Hogg, 1998) which motivates consumers for
experiential avoidance. Experiential avoidance results from negative consumption experience of
consumers. This is a productrelated factor occurred form negative past experiences. Consumers
normally purchase brands for different reasons but the fundamental is the performance
expectations (Lee, Conroy, & Motion, 2009). Confirmation of expectation usually generates
satisfaction and disconfirmation results dissatisfaction (Oliver, 1980). Negative brand experience
causes consumers dissatisfaction that causes of brand hate (Bryson, Atwal, & Hultén, 2013;
Zarantonello et al., 2016). Negative past experience, therefore, leads to brand hate and following
it the researcher state the hypothesis
Negative Brand Image and Brand Hate
Brand image is considered as the key dimension of brand equity (Keller, 1993) and it is
an antecedent of brand equity (Iglesias, Markovic, Singh, & Sierra, 2017). Desired brand image
brings positive effect on consumer brand relationship (Kressmann et al., 2006). Consumers tend
to buy the brand that is congruent with their image and give meaning to their lives (Khan & Lee,
2014). Favorable and consistent brand image is necessarily be generated from both direct and
indirect brand interaction (Farquhar, 1989). However, negative or unfavorable brand image
causes negative reaction from consumers. A brand with poor or unfavorable image leads to
consumers brand hate. Therefore, the following hypothesis has assumed
Brand Hate and Negative word of Mouth

Negative word of mouth is the extent consumers spread negative information or speak
poorly about brands (Bonifield & Cole, 2007). Consumers are more likely share their negative
experience than their positive experience (Finkenauer, Kerkhof, Baumeister, & Vohs, 2007).
Consumers not only privately spread negative word of mouth to alert their friends and relatives
(Nyer & Gopinath, 2005) but also publicly complains in social media and blogs (Zeithaml,
Bitner, & Gremler, 1996). Brand hate stimulates consumer retaliating against brand spreading
negative word of mouth. Therefore, the following hypothesis states.
Brand Hate and Consumer Exit
Psychological research showed that different negative emotions lead to different
behavioral response (Roseman, Wiest, & Swartz, 1994). Exit is one of the reactions of service
failure from consumers (Hirschman, 1970). Exit means ending the relationship or stop buying
the products of the company (Hirschman, 1970). Dissatisfied consumers either voice or exit from
the relationship with the specific brand (Delzen, 2014). Sometimes, consumers actively express
their concern to the company that they are going to exit the relationship (Delzen, 2014).
Therefore, following hypothesis is stated

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1057/palgrave.bm.2550100.pdf

Typology of anti-brand sites

Hirschman ’ s 15 well-known ‘ Exit-Voice ’ theory draws attention to a missing link in the
market mechanism: ‘ consumers ’ respond to companies and markets with not just product /
brand choice decisions — exit; refuse to consume, brand switching, change in purchase
frequency — but also actively giving voice to consumer concerns ’ — voice; complaints,
consumer activism … ’ . In other words, consumers can be neither totally alienated nor
liberated from brands and markets

 Experts aim to erode brand identity and have more constructive arguments,

questioning the company existence, symbolic haters are influenced by negative word of
mouth, complainers usually share their personal dissatisfaction with a product of service
offered by the brand and opportunists want to attract traffic to their own websites, sharing
scandal news to maximize their visibility online (Kucuk, 2008).

Typology of Online Communities

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/224071769_A_typology_of_online_communities_an
d_community_supporting_platforms

The requirements of the community are depended upon the aim of the community and upon the
type of transactions required by the community.
Based on this criteria, the following types of communities can be identified
• Discussion communities, which are dedicated to the exchange of information with reference to
a defined topic. •
Task- and goal-oriented communities, which refer to communities striving to achieve a
common goal by way of cooperation.

Virtual worlds, which provide a virtual settings of complex worlds as for example
galaxies in some games or even virtual societies.
 • Hybrid communities, which can contain several types of communities. In the next
section we will provide a more detailed description of the different community categories and
will describe the appropriate reference models for their platforms.