Anti-branding communities

I felt that it was important to look at anti-branding, as I have been encouraged to take an approach that is different to a regular branding project and it might prove insightful to certain aspects of brand connotations.  While it relates less to the visual persuasion element of branding, knowing why people oppose brands could also inform how I go about creating them as there would be certain aspects that people have identified as turning them off which I could either avoid or amplify depending on my approach.  The first article I write about in this post is titled Consumer Activism on the Internet: The Role of Anti-brand Communities, and it's focus is mainly on groups that are anti-corporation.  It is a little dates (published in 2006) but I found a lot that was relevant still.  The three main groups examined in this study were anti-Wal-Mart, anti-McDonalds and anti-Starbucks, and the communities existed online.  The study examined the four main factors in a person's decision to oppose a brand, and the effect being part of an online community had on their lives.

To give a little more context, the introduction states that: "The purpose of this study is to understand the nature of online, anti-brand communities as an emergent social movement.  The investigation is guided by three research questions.  First, why do online anti-brand communities from?  Second, what behavioural manifestations are associated with anti-brand community involvement?  Third, in what ways are emerging technologies influencing and interacting with consumer activist strategies?" (Hollenbeck and Zinkhan, 2006)  While this paper is really more focused on the psychological aspects of anti-branding, I feel an understanding of this is important to help my research.

Brand relationships and break-ups

 "Consumers not only form relationships with brands, they form relationships with other consumers that have similar brand preferences...Brand communicates are network of consumer relationships that situate a commonly used brand.  These communities create a sense of belonging among consumers and the brand becomes the central purpose and meaning for group interaction. " (Hollenbeck and Zinkhan, 2006)   This is an area I need to explore more, in both research and practical work, and will probably feature in posts I have coming on brand narratives too.  Without customer relationships a brand cannot be sustained - sure, initial business from first-time customers will happen but this will not continue if there is not a promise fulfilled or a connection made between consumer and company.  The article mentions Starbucks as a prime target for an anti-brand community, but Starbucks also has a relationship with its customers based on quality of ingredients, choice, charity investment and personal touches such as the recent named orders scheme running in shops.   Starbucks also "give back" by gifting customers with free e-books and albums from iTunes, so the customer can easily feel that there is a sense of the company giving back to them even as they hand over their money.  One Starbucks customer will identify with others through their choice of coffee chain, and by extension, the perks of this coffee chain - similar tastes merge and there is a small sense of community.  The same could be said of Converse shoes, which are heavily ingrained in the fashion that follows the rock/punk/alternative music culture.  Those whose dress is influenced by their music tastes will often be seen wearing the shoes as part of a dress style that marks them as fans of a particular kind of music.  Of course, this is one sweeping example, and Converse's reach far extends that of young people who alternative bands, but one of several clothing trends which link this demographic together is very often their common choice in the footwear brand.  I could give many more examples of this, but the point is that brands thrive on a relationship not just between them and the customer, but also the customer and other customers.

The reversal of this is also addressed as an opening to the main topic of the paper.  It is noted that
"…brands also have potential to symbolise negative perceptions associated with corporations.  The antithesis of a brand community is an anti-brand community.  In the same way that brand communities are forming around commonly used brands, ant--brand communities are forming around common aversions to brands." (Hollenbeck and Zinkhan, 2006).  This is interesting as it poses the question of whether disliking something is a stronger bonding force than liking something - general consensus says that love wins out, but hate propaganda does have an effect if the other factors are in place.  Anti-idea groups and movements have many things in common with specific anti-brand movements as they both stem from public dissatisfaction.  However, "The anti-brand movement...also has some unique aspects.  First, the anti-brand movement represents a confluence of ideas.  For example, this issues prominent in the anti-brand movement range from workplace equality to corporate domination to environmentalism and marketing propaganda." Following on from this, "In the twenty-first century, many consumers view corporations as dominating and oppressive by means of imbalanced distribution systems of deceitful marketing tactics." (Dobscha, 1998)

Why do people choose an anti-brand approach?

The paper identified four factors that drive people to join anti-brand communities, particularly the ones the writers looked into.  "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).  These findings could be informative for myself, particularly the aspect of social community, support network and call for change.  From the perspectives of propaganda, visual persuasion and branding, these elements can crucial to forming a connection which is a main factor that causes people to act.  The four factors identified also form a kind of overarching narrative which drives the movement and participation in it.   The movement is almost always carried out on the internet, due to the ease of spreading ideas and interacting with others.   Hollenbeck and Zinkhan (2006) write that "The Internet has changed the way people participate in social action…it has enabled anti-brand communities to proliferate online in unprecedented numbers." Online is the ideal setting for social communities to act out en masse, as communication is centralised, instant and members of forums can respond together to topics or events.   "Today, social movements are transpiring in virtual space, which sets the stage for new forms of protest, organisation, co-operation and coalition-building.  The Internet plays a major role in the anti-brand movement because it provides communication methods for people around the globe irrespective of geographical space and time zones." (Hollenbeck and Zinkhan, 2006)

A sense of community

  An Internet forum or website is also a platform that arguably has less barriers in both a physical and communicative sense, as anyone can reach out to anyone online. Naturally, when this is possibly in a place where many people share opinions, a sense of affinity develops.  "When asked to describe their anti-brand community, participants used similar terms such as "family", "friends", and "support" when telling stories about their website communities. Anti-brand communities provide the supportive, family-like environment necessary to achieve common goals."  So what we can take from this is again the sense of community which is vital to driving the movement, and on the flip side, how this same approach can drive a brand's success.  Continuing this sentiment: "The website acts as a gathering place  for individuals to become and feel authentic.  Through a process of advising and counselling one another, community members engage in a course of self-improvement…"

"I Hate Starbucks" home page

So, why do people act out against corporate brands in the first place? I looked at the site I Hate Starbucks (despite the sacrilege to my 16-year-old-self), whose homepage proclaims among other things that "...small businesses and independent cafes that gave our neighbourhoods and towns such a unique flavour are forced out of business in favour of overprices, over sugared and ultimately unhealthy and uncreative options…"  The obvious outcry here is about the false image projected from Starbucks about ethical business practices and corporations taking over small businesses.  This sentiment is echoed by the findings of the paper, where many people oppose the companies because of the manipulated messages they send out to their consumers, which a large amount of the public act on despite there being very little truth in them.  The aforementioned "Anti-Branding" paper quotes findings from Firat and Ventakesh (1995): "...corporations are perceived by some as using sophisticated promotional techniques to attach world-wide meanings to their brands.  Consumers who internalise these meanings implicitly grant corporations the cultural authority to dictate their values, tastes and preferences." The backlash against this leads to "consumer groups resisting imposed meanings or values that are prescribed by a brand…the brand name serves as a negative symbolisation by representing corporation domination." (Firat and Ventakesh, 1995)

 So the effect of this is that "Anti-brand communities create a virtual reality that fosters utopian thinking.  These communities are visionary, creating ideal, social and political schemes.  The interactions among community members are based upon visionary ideals of urban planning, activist projects and controlled consumption lifestyles." (Hollenebeck and Zinkhan, 2006)

Research findings in relation to my project

The main questions this research has raised for me is, what is it that makes is interact with brands the way we do?  Our relationships with a brand are 95% engineered by the companies behind them, but what is that 5% that makes us behave from our own ways?  What would happen if I took an approach that was not quite anti-branding but encouraged less consumption?  A good example of this in today's market would be the likes of Lush, who use fair-trade ingredients, don't test on animals, urge customers to return packaging and market the shelf life of a product clearly so that buyers can be aware of not wasting it.  

The element of a community movement was also of key interest as it was the part of the anti-branding communities that resonated most with regular brand communities.  I think that the idea of linking people to each other through mutual interests and beliefs will be very helpful to my work - it can also be argued that this is a key factor in propaganda movements, which some anti-brand communities end up becoming.  My next bit of research will be to read the book "No Logo" by Naomi Klein, and then experiment with some minimalist visuals that can discourage the mindset of the typical "over-consumer".

-

References

Firat, Fuat and Alladi Ventakesh (1995). Liberatory Postmodernism and the Reenchentment of Consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 22 (December) 239-67

Hollenbeck, C.R, and Zinkhan, G.M, 2006.  Consumer Activism on the Internet: The Role of Anti-brand Communities. Advances in Consumer Research, [e-journal] 33.   Available at:

http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/v33/v33_10337.pdf

[Accessed 20th October 2014]

Author unknown, date unknown.  I Hate Starbucks [online] Available at: http://www.ihatestarbucks.com 

[Accessed 01 November 2014]