Abstract
۱ | INTRODUCTION
۲ | THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES
۳ | RESEARCH METHOD
۴ | RESULTS
۵ | GENERAL DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
۶ | IMPLICATIONS, FUTURE RESEARCH,
AND LIMITATIONS
REFERENCES

Abstract

This study analyses the relationships of the antecedents of “extreme negative affect” toward luxury brands. The results show that the first-order predictors of luxury brand hate were negative stereotypes of people who use the luxury brand, consumer dissatisfaction with the brand, and negative word-of-mouth. The following three strategic approaches: (a) proactive, (b) neutral, and (c) reactive can be considered as a template to address the causes and implications of brand hate.

۱ | INTRODUCTION

The potential impact of growing anti-consumption behaviors is helping to shape strategic management decisions. A 2017 Edelman Earned Brand survey of 14,000 people in 14 countries found that 57% of consumers claim they will boycott a brand solely because of its parent company’s perceived position on a social or political issue (Edelman, 2017). This path to consumer boycotting behavior is of particular relevance within the luxury sector given that luxury brands deliver higher levels of symbolic and experiential value compared to functional benefits (Berthon, Pitt, Parent, & Berthon, 2009). Luxury consumers tend to display stronger emotional involvement in the consumer decision-making process (Atwal & Williams, 2009), which increases the chances of the development of extreme negative effect, a component of the tripartite model of attitudes (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993).

Given this background, luxury brand executives need to consider the strategic management implications how extreme negative affect, i.e. brand hate, impacts luxury brands. Evidence is mounting that, for brands in general, they impact consumers’ behavior ranging from brand avoidance behavior, to less frequent, but no less alarming revenge-seeking actions aimed at hurting the brand’s image. These behaviors include complaining, negative word-of-mouth (NWOM), protest, patronage reduction or cessation (Zarantonello, Romani, Grappi, & Bagozzi, 2016; Grégoire, Tripp, & Legoux, 2009). In a similar vein, Gelbrich (2009) argues that negative emotions distinctly impact customers’ purchase decisions, loyalty, and frequency with which they use a product or brand. Brand transgressions may leave consumers with emotions analogous to a break-up of a close friendship, or betrayal (Aaker, Fournier, & Brasel, 2004). This issue is clearly important as negative brand relationships can have a detrimental effect on company performance (Fournier & Alvarez, 2013).

As a result, consumers are increasingly aligning their own personal values with those of the brands they buy. The occurrence of this phenomenon supports the view that brand meanings are not controlled by managers; rather they are co-created through interactions among their users (Boyd, Clarke, & Spekman, 2014; Cova & Cova, 2002; Fournier, 1998; Thompson, Rindfleisch, & Arsel, 2006). The relationship between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and luxury branding has been well-documented (Franco, Hussain, & McColl, 2019) which is also reflective of the reallocation of resources in order to improve the brand’s CSR performance.