I hate what you love: brand polarization and negativity towards brands as an opportunity for brand management
| Date | 19 August 2019 |
| Published date | 19 August 2019 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-03-2018-1811 |
| Pages | 614-632 |
| Author | Sergio Andrés Osuna Ramírez,Cleopatra Veloutsou,Anna Morgan-Thomas |
| Subject Matter | Marketing,Product management,Brand management/equity |
I hate what you love: brand polarization and
negativity towards brands as an opportunity
for brand management
Sergio Andrés Osuna Ramírez
Business School, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK and Universidad Escuela de Ingenieria de Antioquia, Envigado, Colombia
Cleopatra Veloutsou
Adam Smith Business School, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK, and
Anna Morgan-Thomas
University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
Abstract
Purpose –Negativity towards a brand is typically conceived as a significant problem for brand managers. This paper aims to show that negativity
towards a brand can represent an opportunity for companies when brand polarization occurs. To this end, the paper offers a new conception of the
brand polarization phenomenon and reports exploratory findings on the benefits of consumers’negativity towards brand s in the context of brand
polarization.
Design/methodology/approach –To develop a conception of brand polarization, the paper builds on research on polarizing brands and extends it
by integrating insights from systematic literature reviews in three bodies of literature: scholarship on brand rivalry and, separately, polarization in
political science and social psychology. Using qualitative data from 22 semi-structured interviews, the paper explores possible advanta ges of brand
polarization.
Findings –This paper defines the brand polarization phenomenon and identifies multiple perspectives on brand polarization . Specifically, the
findings highlight three distinct parties that can benefit from brand polarization: the polarizing brand as an independent entity; the brand team
behind the polarizing brand; and the passionate consumers involved with the polarizing brand. The data reveal specific advantages of brand
polarization associated with the three parties involved.
Practical implications –Managers of brands with a polarizing nature could benefit from having identified a group of lovers and a group of haters,
as this could allow them to improve their focus when developing and implementing the brands’strategies.
Originality/value –This exploratory study is the first explicitly focusing on the brand polarization phenomenon and approaches negativity towa rds
brands as a potential opportunity.
Keywords Polarization, Brand love, Brand hate, Brand polarization, Brand rivalry, Polarizing brands
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
In a number of contexts, consumer brands are not simplytools
that improve the recognisability of the offer and facilitate
transactions, but have become relationship partners to which
consumers are emotionally attached and try to develop
bilateral, interpersonal-like connections (Fournier, 1998;
Veloutsou, 2007). Recently, research has recognized that the
relationships consumers develop with brands vary in terms of
strength and valence, ranging from weak to strong and from
positive to negative emotions (Alvarez and Fournier, 2016).
Understanding the nature of consumer–brand relationships
and their consequences for brandsis of strategic importance for
managers, as it is the new way that consumers and brands
interact in the current environment (Veloutsou and Guzmán,
2017).
Existing research on consumer-brand relationships typically
distinguishes betweenpositive and negative relationships. Most
research suggests that when customers share a common
emotional disposition toward brands, positive with loved
brands (Albert and Merunka, 2013;Carrolland Ahuvia, 2006)
or negative with hated brands (Hegner, et al., 2017b;
Zarantonello et al.,2016;Zarantonello et al., 2018), they
engage differently depending on their brand feelings
(Hollebeek and Chen, 2014). In principle, positive feelings
towards brands are considered to be “good”for the brand,
because they facilitate positive word of mouth (WoM) (Albert
and Merunka, 2013;Carroll and Ahuvia, 2006), make
consumers more loyal (Carroll and Ahuvia, 2006;Veloutsou,
2015), are more willing to forgive a brand that misbehaves
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on
Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/1061-0421.htm
Journal of Product & Brand Management
28/5 (2019) 614–632
Emerald Publishing Limited [ISSN 1061-0421]
[DOI 10.1108/JPBM-03-2018-1811]
Received 28 March 2018
Revised 21 November 2018
Accepted 22 November 2018
614
(Hegner et al., 2017a) and to pay a pricepremium (Albert and
Merunka, 2013). Consumers’negative feelings towards brands
are often thought of as “bad”for the brand because they
increase complaints (Zarantonello et al.,2016), negative WoM
(Hegner et al., 2017b,Zarantonello et al., 2016) and protests
(Zarantonello et al.,2016), reduce patronising (Zarantonello
et al.,2016) and make consumers more likely to ask for revenge
(Hegner et al., 2017b). Although most research focuses on the
effects of consumer–brand relationships on brands, having
strong relationships ofa positive or negative nature is also good
for consumers because it promotes theirself-signalling (Alvarez
and Fournier, 2016), increases self-esteem (Trudeau and
Shobeiri, 2016), provides a sense of self-worth (Fournier,
1998) and allows them to self-express (Fournier, 1998;
Trudeau and Shobeiri, 2016). Past research tends to suggest
that brands should try to develop strong and positive
relationships with their consumers(Veloutsou, 2015) and only
a few studies have drawn attention to the fact that negativity
towards brands also needs to be managed (Veloutsou and
Guzmán, 2017;Azerand Alexander, 2018).
Although nearly all of the existing research indicates that
consumers form only, or primarily, a positive or negative
relationship with a specific brand, the reality is somewhat
different. Many brands simultaneouslyhave a significant group
of lovers and a substantial group of haters. Evidence of the
phenomenon often comes from sectors where self-expressionis
important (Rozenkrants et al., 2017),like sports teams (Grohs
et al., 2015;Lopez-Gonzalez et al., 2014), political candidates
(Finneman, 2015), artists (Outram, 2016) and religious
organizations (Sunstein, 2002b),but also other sectors such as
food, petrochemicalsand news media, where it is not expected.
For instance, brands such as Trump Hotels, CNN and NBC
News in the USA (Armstrong, 2017) or McDonald’s,
Starbucks and BP (Luo et al., 2013a;Thompson et al., 2006)
are reported to have large numbersof supporters and opposers.
Other brands, such as Facebook, feature on most loved
(Morning Consultant,2017) and most hated brands lists (USA
today, 2018). These brands, rated with a widely dispersed
attitude ranging from bad to excellent or from love to hate are
considered to be polarizing brands (Jayasimha and Billore,
2015). The increased number of reports on brand polarization
imply that it is expanding(Morning Consultant, 2017).
Consumers, companiesand various stakeholders are affected
by brands or acknowledge the existenceof polarization through
their behaviour. Individuals demonstrate their polarizing
feelings towards brands throughpositive and negative attitudes
and behaviours, such as brand opposition or brand loyalty
(Wolter et al.,2016;Kuo and Hou, 2017), generation of
negative WoM (Luo et al., 2013b), willingnessto harm a brand
although others love it (Dalakas and Phillips-Melancon, 2012)
and join groups which clearly separate them from others who
have exactly the reverse feelings towards the same brand
(Krishnamurthy and Kucuk, 2009;Popp et al.,2016).
Polarizing brands themselves recognize that they have lovers
and haters and try to control the damaging effects generated
from the haters (Luo et al., 2013b) and boost the positive
effects that the lovers bring (Mafael et al.,2016). Other
stakeholders potentially affected by brand polarization include
sponsors, who can be supported or boycotted by association
(Davies et al., 2006;Dalakas and Phillips-Melancon, 2012),
participants in some sort of brand alliance, who are also
classified in accordancewith the polarizing brand they associate
with (Walsh, 2017;Armstrong, 2017), and even investors, as
polarizing brands are associated with lower variation in stock
price (Luo et al., 2013b).
Polarizing brands seem to have specific characteristics that
could be of benefit for the companies behind them. Research
suggests that such brands might be a resource in various
managerial tasks, including segmentation, differentiation and
positioning (Luo et al., 2013a,2013b)and in the planning and
implementation of the communications strategy (Monahan,
2017;Monahan et al., 2017).A brand’s polarizing nature could
be also used to strengthen the bonds with its loyal passionate
followers (Luoet al., 2013a).
Although important and applicable to the marketing and
branding strategies, the concept of brand polarization is
notoriously under-researched and its consequences are largely
unknown. The academic research on the topic is scant and the
existing academic literaturehas primarily focused and analyzed
the concept of polarizing brands (Luo et al., 2013a,2013b;
Jayasimha and Billore, 2015;Monahan,2017;Monahan et al.,
2017), or polarizing products (Rozenkrants et al, 2017).
Polarizing products are seen as “products that some people like a
great deal and other people dislikea great deal”(Rozenkrantset al.,
2017, p. 759) and operationalized as products with “bimodal
rating distributions”(Rozenkrants et al.,2017, p. 759).
However, research provides very limited evidence on whether
these products possess other properties except the bimodal
ratings. Brand polarization as a concept is not clearly defined
(Mafael et al.,2016).
To appreciate the potential of the simultaneous positivity
and negativity expressed by consumers towards a specific
brand, an enhanced understanding of the concept of brand
polarization is necessary (Luo et al., 2013a,2013b). Possible
advantages for various parties associated with the polarizing
brand also need to be betterunderstood and organized, as there
are anecdotalreports of benefits in the literature.
This paper extends therecent literature that suggests that the
increased negativity towards brand needs to be further
examined (Veloutsou and Guzmán, 2017) and that hate does
not have to harm brands (Monahan et al.,2017). The study
aims to explore more holistically the potential opportunities of
negativity towards brands in the context of brand polarization
for brands and individuals over and above the already noted
segmentation, differentiation (Luo et al., 2013a,2013b)and
marketing communications choices (Monahan et al.,2017). It
also identifies potential benefits and opportunities of brand
polarization for the parties affected by the phenomenon. To
this end, the paper summarizes the existing research on
polarizing brands and enriches the understanding of the
phenomenon through a more advanced conceptualization.
Given the state of the conceptualizationof brand polarization in
the marketing and management literatures, the definition is
developed based on three systematic literature reviews on
brand rivalry and, separately, polarization in political science
and social psychology. It also uses qualitative data collected
through 22 interviews to identify its effects as expressed from
consumers who engagewith polarizing brands.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. First, the
paper reports the systematic reviews on the mentioned
I hate what you love
Sergio Andrés Osuna Ramírez et al.
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 28 · Number 5 · 2019 · 614–632
615
To continue reading
Request your trial