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  
 
Journal,    
Topic   Title   Author   Year   Content  
Book,  etc.  
>  Analyzes  the  boycotts  against  certain  brands  and  
Journal  of   tries  to  find  out  effective  counter  measurements  
An  evaluation  of   Ulku  
Anti-­‐ Business   >  It  was  proven  that  related  and  unrelated  positive  
strategic  re-­‐ Yuksel,  
Con-­‐ 2009   Research,   information  is  positive  for  brands  to  recover  their  
sponses  to  con-­‐ Victoria  
sumption   62,  pp.  248-­‐ image  
sumer  boycotts   Mryteza  
259.   >  However  discrediting  in  turn  a  competitor  does  not  
change  the  situation  at  all  
Michael  
S.  W.  
Journal  of   >  Outline  of  articles  being  published  in  a  special  edi-­‐
Anti-­‐ Lee,  
Anti-­‐ Business   tion  of  the  Journal  of  Business  Research,  dedicated  to  
consumption:  An   Karen  V.  
Con-­‐ 2009   Research,   Anti-­‐consumption  
overview  and   Fernan-­‐
sumption   62,  pp.145– >  Sketching  which  areas  in  this  field  of  research  could  
research  agenda   dez,  Mic
147.   be  investigated  forthcoming  
hael  R.  
Hyman  
Michael  
Anti-­‐
ICAR  Conference   S.  W.   Conference   >  Many  different  extended  abstracts  debating  about  
Con-­‐ 2012  
2012   Lee,  et   paper.   different  arising  issues  in  the  field  of  anti-­‐consumption  
sumption  
al.  
>  Notes  that  anti-­‐consumption  has  mostly  focused  on  
anti-­‐brand.  
Journal  of   >  Therefore  focus  on  the  general  motivation  for  anti-­‐
Rajesh  
Anti-­‐ Purpose  and   Business   consumption  by  first  differentiation  4  categories  
Iyer,  
Con-­‐ object  of  anti-­‐ 2009   Research,   >  Then,  he  is  testing  how,  self-­‐consciousness,  self-­‐
James  A.  
sumption   consumption   62,  pp.  160-­‐ actualization  and  self-­‐assertiveness  have  a  positive  or  
Muncy  
168.   negative  correlation  with  2  types  of  this  matrix  (the  4  
categories,  distinguished  by  2  dimensions)  proposed  
by  him  

 
 
 
 3

 
Venessa  
Reprisal,  retribu-­‐ Journal  of   >  Outlines  retaliatory  behavior  of  customers  mostly  
Funches,  
Anti-­‐ tion  and  requital:   Business   due  to  unmet  expectations  
Melissa  
consump-­‐ Investigating   2009   Research,   >  They  describe  4  Motivations  for  this  behavior.  
Markley  
tion   customer  retalia-­‐ 62,  pp.  231– Transactional  injustice  is  one  of  the  most  common  
&  Lenita  
tion   238.   reason  and  also  denote  4  behaviors  of  retaliation  
Davis  
>  Explore  the  idea  of  anti-­‐brand  hegemony  on  the  
Journal  of   example  of  open  source  software  users  
John  G.  
Anti-­‐ Business   >  See  Rejection  of  Brand  Hegemony  an  act  against  the  
The  rejection  of   Cromie,  
Con-­‐ 2009   Research,   Brand  or  vendor  but  not  as  attempt  to  consume  less  
brand  hegemony   Mike  T.  
sumption   62,  pp.  218-­‐ >  It  is  mostly  triggered  by  a  feeling  of  reduction  in  
Ewing  
230.   consumers'  perceived  choice,  actual  choice,  product  
knowledge,  search  confidence  and  trust  

Lee  P.   >  They  analyze  the  meaning  of  underdog  and  develop  
Underdog  con-­‐ Journal  of  
McGin-­‐ possible  motivations  for  this  behavior  
Anti-­‐ sumption:  An   Business  
nis,   >  They  also  conclude  that  underdog  support  is  not  
Con-­‐ exploration  into   2009   Research,  
James   always  based  on  opposing  the  big  ones  in  a  system  but  
sumption   meanings  and   62,  pp.  291-­‐
W.  Gen-­‐ sometimes  simply  willing  to  help  the  small  ones  who  
motives   199.  
try   try  hard  but  do  not  succeed  as  much  
 Manage-­‐
Brands  and   >  Defines  Brand  as  well  as  Brand  Equity  Management  
ment  Deci-­‐
brand  equity:   Lisa   >  Gives  a  thorough  overview  of  the  many  definitions  
Brand   2000   sion,  38(9),  
definition  and   Wood   of  brands  which  are  either  based  on  benefits  for  the  
pp.  662  –  
management   company  or  benefits  for  the  consumer  
669.  
Michael  
Journal  of  
S.  W.   >  Brand  avoidance  can  be  clustered  in:  Experiential  
Brand   Anti-­‐ Business  
Lee,  J   avoidance,  Identity  avoidance,  Moral  avoidance  
Avoid-­‐ consumption  and   2009   Research,  
Motion,   >  Starting  to  understand  the  cause  of  brand  avoidance  
ance   Brand  avoidance   62,  pp.  169–
D.   can  help  to  improve  brand  acceptance  
180.  
Conroy  
Brands  that  we   >  Doctoral  Thesis  exploring  and  defining  the  concept  
Brand   Michael,  
love  to  hate  -­‐  An   Doctoral   of  'Brand  Avoidance'  
Avoid-­‐ S.  W.   2008  
exploration  of   Thesis.   >  Brand  avoidance  can  be  clustered  in:  Experiential  
ance   Lee  
brand  avoidance   avoidance,  Identity  avoidance,  Moral  avoidance  
Brand  Communi-­‐
ties  and  new   Scott,  A.  
Journal  of   >  Examines  the  effects  of  brand  community  participa-­‐
Brand   Product  Adop-­‐ Thomp-­‐
Marketing,   tion  and  membership  duration  on  the  adoption  of  
Commu-­‐ tion:  The  Influ-­‐ son,   2008  
72,  pp.  65– new  products  from  opposing  brands  as  well  as  from  
nity   ence  and  Limits   Rajiv,  K.  
80.   the  preferred  brand  
of  Oppositional   Sinha  
Loyalty  

 
 
 
 4

Albert   >  Find  evidence  for  the  existence  of  brand  communi-­‐
Journal  of  
M.  Muni ties  
Brand   Consumer  
Brand  Communi-­‐ z  Jr,   >  Outline  mechanisms  and  particularities  of  brand  
Commu-­‐ 2001   Research,  
ty   Thomas   communities  
nity   27(4),  pp.  
C.  O'Gui >  Situate  these  findings  within  the  broader  fields  of  
412-­‐432.  
nn   literature  

>    Research  explores  the  grassroots  brand  community  

Religiosity  in   Albert   Journal  of  
centered  on  the  abandoned  Apple  Newton  Brand  
Brand   the  abandoned   M.  Mu-­‐ Consumer  
>  This  study  reveals  important  properties  of  brand  
Commu-­‐ Apple  New-­‐ niz   2005   Research,  
communities  and,  at  a  deeper  level,  speak  to  the  
nity   ton  brand  com-­‐ Jr,  Hope   31,  pp.  737  –  
communal  nature  of  religion  and  the  enduring  human  
munity   J.  Schau   747.  
need  for  religious  affiliation  
>  Describe  “dark”  behaviors  as  inter-­‐group  stereo-­‐
The  Dark  Side  of  
Thomas   Advances  in   typing,  “trash  talking”  rival  brand  communities,  and  
Brand  Communi-­‐
Brand   Hick-­‐ Consumer   feeling  pleasure  at  the  misfortune  of  rival  brands  and  
ty:    Inter-­‐Group  
Commu-­‐ man,   2007   Research,   their  users.  
Stereotyping,  
nity   James   34,  pp.  314  -­‐ >  Explore  how  loyalty  to  one  brand  community  pro-­‐
Trash  Talk,  and  
Ward   319.   vokes  negative  views  of  not  only  rival  brands  but  their  
Schadenfreude  
users  
Rajeev  
Batra,  
>  Empirical  study  to  prove  the  concept  of  brand  love  
Aaron   Journal  of  
Brand   >  By  creating  prototype,  attributes  have  been  created  
Brand  Love   Ahuvia,   2012   Marketing,  
Love   from  the  bottom  up  instead  of  deriving  it  from  inter-­‐
Richard   76,  pp.  1–16.  
personal  love!  
P.  Ba-­‐
gozzi  
>  Conceptualized  more  in  which  way  brand  satisfac-­‐
Barbara  
Some  anteced-­‐ tion  and  brand  love  are  different  from  each  other  
A.  Car-­‐ Marketing  
Brand   ents  and  out-­‐ >  They  also  investigated  the  effects  that  brand  love  
roll,   2006   Letters,  17,  
Love   comes  of  brand   has  on  consumers  behavior.  For  instances  it  was  prov-­‐
Aaron  C.   pp.  79–89.  
love   en  that  more  brand  love  leads  to  more  brand  loyalty  
Ahuvia  
and  more  positive  word  of  mouth  
>      Study    explores    the    relationship    among    brand    
The  Chain  of   Arjun   trust,    brand    affect,    and    brand    performance    out-­‐
Effects  from   Chaudhu comes    (market  share    and    relative    price)  with  an    
Journal  of  
Brand  Trust  and   ri  and   emphasis    on  understanding  the    linking    role    played    
Brand   Marketing,  
Brand  Affect  to   Morris   2001   by  brand    loyalty  
Loyalty   65(2),  pp.  
Brand  Perfor-­‐ B.   >    Brand    trust    and  brand    affect  were  each  directly    
81-­‐93.  
mance:  The  Role   Holbroo related    to  both    purchase    and    attitudinal    loyalty,  
of  Brand  Loyalty   k   they  were  indirectly    related    to  market    share    and  
relative    price  
Jacob    Journal  of   >  Examines  the  difference  between  brand  loyalty  and  
Brand  Loyalty  vs.   Jacoby   Marketing   repeated  purchase  behavior  
Brand  
Repeat  Purchas-­‐ and  Da-­‐ 1973   Research,   >  It  is  empirically  proven  that  brand  loyalty  has  other  
Loyalty  
ing  Behavior   vid  B.   10(1),  pp.  1-­‐ underlying  dynamics  than  repeated  purchase  behavior  
Kyner   9.   based  on  the  6  factor  concept  elaborated  by  them  

 
 
 
 5

 
>  Analyses  all  consisting  self-­‐concept  theories  to  that  
 Journal  of   point  
Self-­‐Concept  in  
Consum-­‐  M.  Jo-­‐ Consumer   >  Comes  up  with  the  idea  that  there  should  be  a  con-­‐
Consumer  Be-­‐
er  Behav-­‐ seph   1982   Research,   gruity  of  the  self-­‐image  and  the  product  image  
havior:  A  Critical  
ior   Sirgy   9(3),  pp.   >  If  this  is  given,  the  product  is  further  construct  one’s  
Review  
287-­‐300.   own  identity.  Products  diverging  from  that  are  not  
likely  to  be  consumed  
 Rob-­‐
Adversaries  of  
ert  V.  Ko Journal  of   >  Focuses  on  consumer  movements  that  seek  ideolog-­‐
Consumption:  
Consum-­‐ zinets   Consumer   ical  and  cultural  change  
Consumer  
er  Re-­‐ and   2004   Research,   >  The  results  explain  amongst  others  the  importance    
Movements,  
sistance   Jay  M.  H 31(3),  pp.   of  spiritual  and  religious  identities  when  fighting  e.g.  
Activism,  and  
andel-­‐ 691-­‐704.   against  Nike  or  GE  food  
Ideology  
man  
>  Describes  and  analyzes  the  anti-­‐market  event  in  
Can  Consumers  
Journal  of   California  called  'Burning  Man'  
Escape  the  Mar-­‐
Consum-­‐ Robert   Consumer   >  Raises  the  questions  if  consumers  can  really  escape  
ket?  Emancipa-­‐
er  Re-­‐ V.  Kozin 2002   Research,   the  market  
tory  Illumina-­‐
sistance   ets   29(1),  pp.   >  He  concluded  that  temporarily  this  may  be  possible  
tions  from  Burn-­‐
20-­‐38.   but  not  for  a  long  time.  Yet,  the  event  helps  to  trans-­‐
ing  Man  
form  the  individual  in  a  certain  way  
>  Has  made  a  study  about  Starbucks  and  how  the  
brands  impacts  local  culture.  
The  Starbucks    
Journal  of   >  They  argue  that  beside  local  shaping  of  global  
Brandscape  and   Craig  J.  T
Consum-­‐ Consumer   brands,  a  global  brand  exerts  some  kind  of  hegemonic  
Consumers’  (An-­‐ homp-­‐
er  Re-­‐ 2004   Research,   influence  on  the  systems  
ti-­‐corporate)   son  and  
sistance   31(3),  pp.   >  This  is  symbolized  by  anti-­‐movements  of  coffee-­‐
Experiences  of   Zeynep  
631-­‐642.   shops  which  are  local  but  all  dwell  their  identity  by  
Glocalization   Arsel  
being  against  the  main  stream  star  bucks,  which  thus  
becomes  some  kind  of  general  standard...  
>  Note  that  the  self-­‐identity  is  created  also  via  prod-­‐
ucts.  This  process  does  not  only  include  liking  certain  
I  Am  Not  There-­‐
Advances  in   products  but  also  'know'  which  ones  not  to  like  
Dissocia-­‐ fore,  I  Am:  the   Basil  G.  
Consumer   >  Not  consuming  has  to  be  defined  in  non-­‐choice  and  
tive  Ref-­‐ Role  of  Avoid-­‐ Englis,  
1997   Research,   anti-­‐choice.  The  latter  one  is  more  important  because  
erence   ance  Products  in   Berry  
24,  pp.  61-­‐ the  deliberate  avoiding  is  given!  
Groups   Shaping  Con-­‐ College  
63.   >  When  asking  students,  they  could  design  anti-­‐
sumer  Behavior  
constellation  consumption,  meaning  to  list,  things  
they  would  not  consume  
To  be  or  not  to  
be?  The  influ-­‐ Journal  of  
Dissocia-­‐
ence  of  dissocia-­‐ K   Consumer   >  The  role  of  dissociative  reference  groups  (i.e.,  those  
tive  Ref-­‐
tive  reference   White,  D 2006   Psychology,   groups  we  wish  to  avoid  being  associated  with)  in  
erence  
groups  on  con-­‐ W  Dahl   16(4),  pp.   influencing  consumer  preferences.  
Groups  
sumer  prefer-­‐ 404–414.  
ences  

 
 
 
 6

 
Us  versus   Albert   Advances  in  
Opposi-­‐ >Observation  of  "Oppositional  Brand  Loyalty"  
them:  Oppositio M.  Mu-­‐ Consumer  
tional   >  Consumer  defines  by  buying  some  brand  AND      
nal  brand  loyalty   niz,  Lawr 2001   Research,  
Brand   avoiding  other  brands  
and  the  cola   ence  O.   28,  pp.  355-­‐
Loyalty   >  Also  discrediting  behavior  was  seen  
wars   Hamer     361.  
>  The  research  tries  to  establish  a  framework  with  
which  one  can  determine  by  the  causes  of  the  product  
Consumer  Reac-­‐ Journal  of   failure  the  consumer  reaction  
Product   tions  to  Product   Consumer   >  The  3  casual  dimensions  of  stability,  locus  and  con-­‐
Valerie  
Dissatis-­‐ Failure:  An  At-­‐ 1984   Research,   trollability  are  important  and  can  lead  to  8  different  
S.  Folkes  
faction   tributional  Ap-­‐ 10(4),  pp.   scenarios  depending  on  the  vari.  (23)  
proach   398-­‐409.   >  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   Negative  
Feeling   Feeling  

Product   Brand  Loyalty   Brand  Avoidance  

Oppositional  Brand   Oppositional  Brand  Avoid-­‐

Loyalty   ance  
Product        
and  its  compet-­‐ In  its  core  positive  and  towards  others   In  its  core  negative  but  to  others  posi-­‐
ing  ones   negative   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
----