Abstract

Brand polarization represents a somewhat unorthodox approach to brand management. Rather than foster support and minimise opposition towards a brand, polarization maintains strong emotions at both ends of the spectrum, concurrently attending to the antipodes of brand love and brand hate. Although some emerging insights suggest that this paradoxical approach can effectively support brands, academic research on polarization in marketing is in its infancy. Integrating insight from political science, psychology and marketing, the study develops an enhanced theoretical conception of brand polarization and operationalises it through a multi-step procedure. Specifically, the paper builds on qualitative and quantitative data from six empirical studies in two contexts (UK and Colombia) to offer a 23-item scale for brand polarization. The new concept and the validated scale contribute to branding theory and marketing practice in several important ways.

Introduction

Brand polarization represents a somewhat unorthodox approach to brand management. Accepted wisdom dictates that managers should strive to enhance positive attitudes towards brands in order to develop deep and rewarding relationships with customers (Ahmad et al., 2021, Banerjee and Shaikh, 2022, Veloutsou, 2023). Conversely, management effort should actively prevent or minimise negative feelings and opposition towards a brand, as these undermine positive outcomes such as trust, satisfaction or loyalty (Curina et al., 2020). A polarizing brand is one which simultaneously invokes fervent support and equally intense opposition. Brand polarization entails strong emotions at both ends of the spectrum and denotes management’s concurrent attention to, and maintenance of, passionate feelings on the antipodes of brand love and brand hate.

Paradoxically, some emerging empirical insights suggest that this positioning needs not be avoided because stoking hate can increase support for a brand (Osuna Ramírez et al., 2019). Moreover, polarization has become a deliberate strategy for some brands (Kavilanz, 2021, Luo et al., 2013a) being beneficial for segmentation and targeting, and for building engagement and loyalty and in the design of the product offering (Weber et al., 2021). Although historically polarization was limited to political (Banda and Kirkland, 2018, Pich et al., 2020, Spears et al., 1990) or football brands (Cobbs et al., 2017, Dalakas and Phillips-Melancon, 2012, Davies et al., 2006), now it seems to extend to other categories. In fact, evidence seems to point to a growing number of polarizing brands (Segran, 2021) which draw large numbers of lovers and haters simultaneously (Luo et al., 2013a, Thompson et al., 2006).

Discussion and theoretical contribution

This study offers a novel operationalisation of the brand polarization phenomenon as a multi-dimensional construct. Given the importance of brand relationships in today’s competitive marketplace and the existence of brand polarization, the study offers a non-brand-specific approach to polarization, which facilitates comparative study of the phenomenon that moves away from objects, such as polarizing brands (Monahan et al., 2017) or polarizing products (Rozenkrants et al., 2017). Through an extensive scale development process, the study enhances the conceptualisation and operationalisation of brand polarization, providing new theoretical and applied directions.

Overall, this research contributes to the branding literature in three significant ways. The first contribution concerns a novel operationalisation of an emerging concept. Integrating insights from diverse literature including psychology, political science, and marketing, the study conceptualises brand polarization and identifies its distinct dimensions. In doing so, the study constitutes a first attempt to develop a comprehensive and multidimensional conception of brand polarization. Admittedly, two of the originally suggested dimensions comprising brand polarization – brand passion and generation of strong feelings for the brand’s achievement/misfortune – were amalgamated during the scale development engagement. Nonetheless, the resulting four-dimensional concept, including brand passion, self-brand benchmarking, intra-group identification and inter-group dissociation, encompasses the intended theoretical domain. Compared to existing conceptions (Luo et al., 2013b, Monahan et al., 2017, Rozenkrants et al., 2017), a key headway concerns its robust and comprehensive nature.