Buscar

Brand avoidance among Generation Y consumers

Faça como milhares de estudantes: teste grátis o Passei Direto

Esse e outros conteúdos desbloqueados

16 milhões de materiais de várias disciplinas

Impressão de materiais

Agora você pode testar o

Passei Direto grátis

Faça como milhares de estudantes: teste grátis o Passei Direto

Esse e outros conteúdos desbloqueados

16 milhões de materiais de várias disciplinas

Impressão de materiais

Agora você pode testar o

Passei Direto grátis

Faça como milhares de estudantes: teste grátis o Passei Direto

Esse e outros conteúdos desbloqueados

16 milhões de materiais de várias disciplinas

Impressão de materiais

Agora você pode testar o

Passei Direto grátis

Você viu 3, do total de 18 páginas

Faça como milhares de estudantes: teste grátis o Passei Direto

Esse e outros conteúdos desbloqueados

16 milhões de materiais de várias disciplinas

Impressão de materiais

Agora você pode testar o

Passei Direto grátis

Faça como milhares de estudantes: teste grátis o Passei Direto

Esse e outros conteúdos desbloqueados

16 milhões de materiais de várias disciplinas

Impressão de materiais

Agora você pode testar o

Passei Direto grátis

Faça como milhares de estudantes: teste grátis o Passei Direto

Esse e outros conteúdos desbloqueados

16 milhões de materiais de várias disciplinas

Impressão de materiais

Agora você pode testar o

Passei Direto grátis

Você viu 6, do total de 18 páginas

Faça como milhares de estudantes: teste grátis o Passei Direto

Esse e outros conteúdos desbloqueados

16 milhões de materiais de várias disciplinas

Impressão de materiais

Agora você pode testar o

Passei Direto grátis

Faça como milhares de estudantes: teste grátis o Passei Direto

Esse e outros conteúdos desbloqueados

16 milhões de materiais de várias disciplinas

Impressão de materiais

Agora você pode testar o

Passei Direto grátis

Faça como milhares de estudantes: teste grátis o Passei Direto

Esse e outros conteúdos desbloqueados

16 milhões de materiais de várias disciplinas

Impressão de materiais

Agora você pode testar o

Passei Direto grátis

Você viu 9, do total de 18 páginas

Faça como milhares de estudantes: teste grátis o Passei Direto

Esse e outros conteúdos desbloqueados

16 milhões de materiais de várias disciplinas

Impressão de materiais

Agora você pode testar o

Passei Direto grátis

Prévia do material em texto

Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal
Brand avoidance among Generation Y consumers
Zana Knittel, Karolin Beurer, Adele Berndt,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Zana Knittel, Karolin Beurer, Adele Berndt, (2016) "Brand avoidance among Generation Y
consumers", Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, Vol. 19 Issue: 1, pp.27-43, doi:
10.1108/QMR-03-2015-0019
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/QMR-03-2015-0019
Downloaded on: 12 May 2017, At: 06:59 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 78 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1996 times since 2016*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2015),"Luxury fashion consumption and Generation Y consumers: Self, brand consciousness, and
consumption motivations", Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal,
Vol. 19 Iss 1 pp. 22-40 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JFMM-08-2013-0096
(2013),"Generation Y values and lifestyle segments", Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 30 Iss 7
pp. 597-606 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JCM-07-2013-0650
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:478531 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 U
SP
 A
t 0
6:
59
 1
2 
M
ay
 2
01
7 
(P
T)
Brand avoidance among
Generation Y consumers
Zana Knittel, Karolin Beurer and Adele Berndt
Jönköping International Business School, Jönköping University,
Jönköping, Sweden
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this research is to explore the reasons for brand avoidance among
Generation Y consumers. Researchers have traditionally focused on the positive relationship between
consumers and brands, but, increasingly, consumers are consciously avoiding brands.
Design/methodology/approach – A qualitative study consisting of both focus groups and
interviews was conducted among Generation Y participants.
Findings – The findings support previous research that identifies four types of brand avoidance,
namely, experiential, identity, moral and deficit-value avoidance. However, the study also suggests that
an additional type of brand avoidance, namely, advertising avoidance, also occurs. Aspects of
advertising that can contribute to brand avoidance include the content of the advertising, the use of a
celebrity endorser and the music in the advertising, as well as the response to the advertising. This
study thus proposes an expanded framework of brand avoidance.
Research limitations/implications – This study has found support for the existing types and
reasons impacting brand avoidance but suggests that advertising may also impact brand avoidance.
This is an aspect that requires further research.
Practical implications – For marketing managers, the findings suggest that not only can product
experiences result in brand avoidance, but that advertising may be a further reason for this
phenomenon.
Originality/value – While there has been a great deal of attention on the positive aspects of brands,
research on the negative aspects has largely been ignored. Further, the identification of advertising as
a reason for brand avoidance is also suggested.
Keywords Advertising, Advertising avoidance, Brand avoidance, Moral avoidance
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Brands and consumption aremajor characteristics ofmodern societies, as they appear in
all different aspects of our lives (Kapferer, 2012). Current branding research has
explored positive customer brand relationships such as brand love (Carroll and Ahuvia,
2006; Bergkvist and Bech-Larsen, 2010; Batra et al., 2012; Sarkar, 2014) and affection
(Tse and Chan, 2008) or emotional attachment (Grisaffe and Nguyen, 2011), which
consumers generally have with brands they use regularly, manifesting as customer
loyalty (Jaiswal and Niraj, 2011). But the negative aspects associated with brands are
equally important.
It has been stated that knowing what consumers do not want to consume is just as
important as knowing about what they do like (Hogg and Banister, 2001; Lee et al.,
2009a). Consequently, issues such as brand avoidance and brand hate have begun to
receive more attention (Lee et al., 2009b). Changes in social media have also made it
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1352-2752.htm
Brand
avoidance
27
Received 12March 2015
Revised 11 September 2015
Accepted 19October 2015
Qualitative Market Research:
An International Journal
Vol. 19 No. 1, 2016
pp. 27-43
©EmeraldGroupPublishing Limited
1352-2752
DOI 10.1108/QMR-03-2015-0019
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 U
SP
 A
t 0
6:
59
 1
2 
M
ay
 2
01
7 
(P
T)
possible for negative forms of behaviour to spread, and research into these negative
aspects is needed to investigate this phenomenon.
Brands can be regarded as multi-dimensional constructs and numerous reasons for
avoiding specific brandsmay exist, but these have not been researchedwidely (Lee et al.,
2009b). This represents a knowledge gap, as understanding why consumers develop
negative attitudes, emotions and relationships towards brands and consciously start to
avoid consuming them is important for marketers.
The main contribution of the research is a further investigation into the types and
reasons associated with brand avoidance highlighted by Lee et al. (2009b), specifically
as it relates toGenerationY consumers, who are regarded as having the power to change
the market, and have access to financial resources (Noble et al., 2009).
The paper will examine the types and reasons why Generation Y consumers avoid
brands, followed by a presentation of the research methodology and the findings. The
paper concludes with a discussion of the findings of the research and proposes an
expanded brand avoidance framework.
2. Theoretical framework
Understanding brand avoidance and its origins is important formarketingmanagers, as
the consequence of this behaviour can be significant for an organisation, its reputation
and profitability. For example, consumers share negative emotions towards brands in
various places, including in online social media (Bailey, 2004). Consumers also share
negative experiences of products or brands to a greater extent than they would express
positive experiences. They also have more to say about their distaste and dislikes in
comparison to things they prefer and like to consume (Wilk, 1997), raising the
importance of brand avoidance as a topic.
2.1 Brand avoidance
Lee et al. (2009a, p. 422) define brand avoidance as the “phenomenon whereby
consumers deliberately choose to keep away from or reject a brand”. Brand avoidance as
a concept is only applicable when consumers avoid brands even though they are
available and they have the financial means of purchasing the brand (Lee et al.,2009a).
Therefore, brand avoidance refers to the deliberate and conscious act of refraining from
using and purchasing a particular brand. As a brand is viewed as a multi-dimensional
construct, many reasons potentially exist for avoiding a brand.
2.2 The types of brand avoidance
Four different types of reasons for brand avoidance have been identified (Lee et al.,
2009b), namely, experiential, identity, moral and deficit-value avoidance. Each of these
types identified have a number of reasons that reflect the nature of the avoidance types,
as reflected in Figure 1.
Experiential avoidance is associated with the use of a product and the perceptions
associated with it. Reasons associated with this type of avoidance include the poor
performance of the product, inconvenience (hassle) associated with acquiring the
product and a negative store environment (Lee et al., 2009b).
Branding involves making a promise to a consumer and adding value to their lives
(Berry, 2000; Balmer and Gray, 2003) and these brand promises lead to expectations
(Grönroos, 2006).When these promises are consistent with the consumer’s expectations,
repurchase is encouraged (Dall’olmo Riley andDe Chernatony, 2000).When the promise
QMR
19,1
28
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 U
SP
 A
t 0
6:
59
 1
2 
M
ay
 2
01
7 
(P
T)
is not kept and expectations do not match the actual experience, the consumer becomes
dissatisfied and brand avoidance might occur (Bitner, 1990; Lee et al., 2009a). If a
product does not meet customer expectations, there is a perception of poor performance,
resulting in dissatisfaction and subsequent brand avoidance (Halstead, 1989; Bitner,
1990; Lee et al., 2009a). If a customer has the expectation that the use of a diet product
will result in weight loss and it does not, they experience disappointment. Avoiding the
product then accrues from this dissatisfaction.
Critical incidents in service encounters leading to customer-switching behaviour
were identified by Keaveney (1995). Among the reasons for switching were
inconvenience, pricing, core service failures, service encounter failures, employee
responses to service failures, ethical problems and attraction by competitors (Keaveney,
1995). Even though these reasons are the causes behind switching behaviour of
consumers, same reasons could be identified as reasons for brand avoidance in the
research of Lee et al. (2009a). Consumers might additionally be unsatisfied with the
hassle that is involved in dealingwith product failures and complaints, whichmight lead
to avoidance of the particular store or brand. For example, contacting a customer service
department of a chain store to resolve a situation may be viewed as too much effort and
just not worth the time, resulting in avoidance.
Another reason behind experiential avoidance is the unpleasant store environment,
which refers to non-interpersonal factors of the shopping experience (Arnold et al., 2005;
Lee et al., 2009b). Research on the effects of the environment on shopper behaviour has
tended to focus on the design of retail environments that produce positive consumer
feelings and increase the likelihood of purchase (Kotler, 1973; Donovan and Rossiter,
1982). In addition to these reasons, several interpersonal and non-interpersonal factors
such as stimuli, ambience and social factors could potentially lead to avoiding a store or
brand (Astous, 2000; Arnold et al., 2005). These factors contribute to the unpleasant
store environment and irritated consumers decide to avoid the store. For example,
shopping for groceries in a dirty, poorly maintained grocery store is not viewed as
pleasant, resulting in avoidance of the store.
Identity avoidance refers to the inability of a brand to fulfil an individual’s symbolic
identity requirements (Lee et al., 2009b). A consumermaintains his or her self-concept by
Expe
Avoi
Per
H
Inco
Env
riential
dance
Poor 
rformance
Hassle / 
onvenience
Store 
vironment
Identity A
N
Refe
Ina
Dei
Avoidance
Negative 
erence Group
authenticity
ndividuation
Moral Av
Anti-H
Coun
voidance
Hegemony
ntry Effects
Deficit
Avoid
Unfa
Ae
Insu
Food 
t-Value 
dance
amiliarity
esthetic 
ufficiency
Favoritism
Source: Lee et al. (2009b)
Figure 1.
The four types of
brand avoidance
29
Brand
avoidance
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 U
SP
 A
t 0
6:
59
 1
2 
M
ay
 2
01
7 
(P
T)
purchasing products and brands that are congruent with the self, which enhance and
maintain their self-concept (Belk, 1988), thus avoiding brands perceived as incongruent
with the desired or actual self-concept is strongly related to identity avoidance (Hogg
and Banister, 2001; Lee et al., 2009a). The negative symbolic meanings a brand
represents to an individual and incongruence of those meanings with his or her
self-concept motivate identity avoidance (Lee et al., 2009a). Theory on disidentification
suggests that consumers may also develop their self-concept by disidentifying with
organisations which are perceived as inconsistent with their values (Bhattacharya and
Elsbach, 2002). A consumer might avoid a brand because it represents an undesired self
or a connection to a negative reference group (Lee et al., 2009a). Consumers especially
avoid brands which are connected to negative reference groups and are symbolically
incompatible with an individual’s self-concept (Englis and Solomon, 1995; Lee et al.,
2009a). It has to be noted that even though these two concepts of identity avoidance
might seem similar, a small distinction exists between them. The ideas of a consumer’s
undesired self are concrete and specific, while the perception of negative reference
groups may be less accurate and instead be more stereotypical (Elsbach and
Bhattacharya, 2001). For example, the owner of a car brand is perceived to be
status-orientated and, consequently, this brand is avoided. Therefore, avoidance in the
case of negative reference groups might be purely based on generalisation of a typical
brand user (Lee et al., 2009a). A lack of authenticity of a brand (Lee et al., 2009a) may also
result in brand avoidance. Attaining and maintaining associations of authenticity are
challenges for many brands (Thompson et al., 2006). By becoming too popular and
mainstream, a brand may lose authenticity (Holt, 2002; Beverland, 2006). As the brand
loses the respect of its hard-core cliental, it might be labelled as ordinary or inauthentic
(Lee et al., 2009a), influencing avoidance. The perception that “everyone uses brand X”
thus serves as reason to avoid brand X. Deindividuation comes about when consumers
avoid mainstream brands to prevent a loss of individuality and self-identity. Instead of
adding meaning through brands consumed, some brands may weaken and undermine
individuality and consuming them might lead to a loss of identity (Lee et al., 2009a).
Moral avoidance can be linked to the ideological incompatibility between the
consumer and the product, hence referring to political and socioeconomic sets of beliefs
(Lee et al., 2009a). One example of this is anti-hegemony, where a consumer avoids
dominant brands to prevent monopolies or because they are associated with corporate
irresponsibility (Kozinets andHandelman, 2004). Themotivation of this type of rejection
is not to reduce overall consumption level but to reject specific brands due to their
behaviour in the marketplace (Cromie and Ewing, 2009). The imbalance of power
between a multi-national brand and a consumer is another factor influencing the
anti-hegemony as a part of moral avoidance (Lee et al., 2009a). Consumers may feel
disempowered by the lack of freedom of choice andmight therefore engage in avoidance
(Cromie and Ewing, 2009). For example, the dominance of a fuel or beer company in the
marketplace may serveas the reason the consumer avoids a brand. Moral avoidance is
also linked to country effects and the associations consumers have with a brand’s
country of origin (COO). Consumers can either consider the composition of product–
country images (Agrawal and Kamakura, 1999) or they use COO as an evaluation of
product quality (Klein et al., 1998; Bloemer et al., 2009). Consumers may find it
acceptable to buy products from a variety of foreign countries but refuse to purchase
products coming from one specific foreign country which is the target of animosity
QMR
19,1
30
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 U
SP
 A
t 0
6:
59
 1
2 
M
ay
 2
01
7 
(P
T)
feelings (Riefler and Diamantopoulos, 2007). Boycotts organised against a country are
an example of this. Financial patriotism can also be associated with COO (Lee et al.,
2009a). Consumers have a patriotic connection with local brands that are part of the
community and would rather support those (Lee et al., 2009a), which is linked to
ethnocentrism and the preference for purchasing local products for profits to remain in
the local community (Shimp and Sharma, 1987). The purchase of Swedish meat by
Swedes in preference to those from other countries is an example of this. Amore specific
form of moral brand avoidance is the act of politically motivated brand rejection, which
is the refusal to purchase or use a brand due to the perceived association of the brand
with a particular political ideology that the consumer opposes and with which they do
not want to be associated (Sandıkcı and Ekici, 2009). A donation by an organisation to a
political party can precipitate avoidance of the company’s brands among those of a
different political persuasion.
Deficit-value avoidance occurs when the brands are perceived as representing an
unacceptable cost to benefit trade-off (Lee et al., 2009b). Consumers might avoid brands
that are perceived as low-quality and, consequently, deficient in value (Lee et al., 2009b).
A price-perceived quality relationship influences buyers’ perceptions of value, their
purchase intentions or choices (Dodds et al., 1991). Deficit-value avoidance is also
associated with unfamiliarity. Consumers may avoid unfamiliar brands because these
could be regarded as being lower in quality and increase customer perceptions of risk.
Thus, compared to brands with which consumers are familiar, these unfamiliar brands
provide less value and are therefore avoided (Lee et al., 2009b). New brands introduced
into the market face this challenge from consumers. Consumers might use the
appearance of a brand as an indicator of functional value and avoid aesthetically
insufficient brands with (for example) unattractive packaging. Attractive packaging
and models are used by marketers in promotional campaigns, with the hope that the
positive connotations consumers have of attractiveness will be associated with the
brand (Belch, 2012). Consumers may avoid food associated with certain value-deficient
brands, even though they purchase other products from the same brand (Lee et al.,
2009b). This phenomenon is called food favouritism, and it is suggested that consumers
are more likely to be cautious and avoid unfamiliar, contaminated, cheap or harmful
food (Green et al., 2003). It can be argued that both experience and deficit-value
avoidance are closely related constructs, as they refer to expectations which are not met.
The distinction between these constructs is that in contrast to experience, deficit-value
avoidance does not include or require personal experience and usage of the product or
brand, but examines the relationship between value and cost.
2.3 Generation Y and brands
Acohort is regarded as a group that shares life experiences resulting in the fact that they
develop similar attitudes and belief, despite being in different cultures; worldwide
events have had similar outcomes on the beliefs of this generational group (Reisenwitz
and Iyer, 2009; Lazarevic, 2012; Parment, 2012). They are well-educated (Noble et al.,
2009; Aquino, 2012) and technologically adept (Noble et al., 2009; Aquino, 2012) and,
consequently, not afraid to try new products and services. From a demographic
perspective, GenerationY is a largemarket (in size) with large current and future buying
power (Bakewell and Vincent-Wayne, 2003; Noble et al., 2009; Aquino, 2012; Lazarevic,
2012; Parment, 2012), making this market interesting for marketers. From a brand
31
Brand
avoidance
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 U
SP
 A
t 0
6:
59
 1
2 
M
ay
 2
01
7 
(P
T)
perspective, they are knowledgeable about brands (Lazarevic, 2012), as they have grown
up in an environment that is brand-saturated and they have more experience in making
brand-related decisions (Bakewell andVincent-Wayne, 2003). The brands consumed are
those regarded as being congruent with their self-image (Noble et al., 2009), reflecting a
match between how they view themselves and brands purchased. Not only are they
aware of what brand usage will say about them, they are also aware of the inferences
other will draw of them based on their consumption patterns (Lazarevic, 2012).
Regarding the brand loyalty of this cohort, some say they are brand-loyal, while others
say this group is “notoriously disloyal” (Lodes and Buff, 2009; Lazarevic, 2012, p. 45),
reflecting contradictory findings (Noble et al., 2009). Brand loyalty is exhibited towards
some product categories, though not towards others. Products having this loyalty
include higher priced items such as laptop computers and mobile phones and products
that are perceived as important, such as personal products (Lodes and Buff, 2009). This
power in the marketplace has the potential to influence the survival and/or success of
brands.
2.4 Generation Y and brand avoidance
Some research among this cohort has been conducted. In case of fast fashion products,
female Korean Generation Y consumers exhibited brand avoidance based on eight
categories of beliefs about fast fashion (Hyunsook et al., 2013). These beliefs (including
poor performance, inauthenticity and irresponsibility) link to the types of brand
avoidance proposed by Lee et al. (2009b). Avoidance of alcoholic products byGeneration
Y consumers has also been investigated using this model, and suggests that these types
of avoidance also exist in this context (Piacentini and Banister, 2009). The avoidance of
luxury brands was also identified by Bryson et al. (2013) among a sample that included
Generation Y participants.
3. Purpose of the study
Research on the negative aspects associated with branding and especially the notion of
brand avoidance is relatively scarce. While the types and associated reasons for brand
avoidance have been identified, it is not clearwhether there are other reasons and factors
affecting brand avoidance. It is also not clear as to the extent to which these types and
factors are significant in the case of Generation Y consumers. The purpose of this
research is thus to investigate the types and reasons associated with brand avoidance
among Generation Y consumers.
4. Methodology
An exploratory design was applied due to the lack of pre-existing research on this
subject, as well as the desire to explore brand avoidance in more detail and in a different
setting from thatwhich has been done to date. A qualitative research approachwas used
to enable the researchers to capture nuances of the responses and the reasons for their
behaviour (Corbin and Strauss, 2008; Malhotra, 2012). Qualitative methods additionally
have the major strength of incorporating richness, depth nuances, multi-dimensionality
aswell as complexity, characteristics that are also needed for this research,making it the
most suitable (Mason, 2002; Ritchie and Lewis, 2003). When studying brand avoidance
in this study, the target population was Generation Y consumers makingactive and
deliberate purchase and non-purchase decisions.
QMR
19,1
32
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 U
SP
 A
t 0
6:
59
 1
2 
M
ay
 2
01
7 
(P
T)
4.1 Data collection methods
Usewasmade of a two-step process in this study to limit theweaknesses associatedwith
a single data collection method. The first step made use of focus group discussions,
which were followed by interviews.
4.1.1 Step 1: focus groups. The purpose of a focus group is to have a free-flowing
discussion which a moderator guides and develops, enabling gaining deeper insights. It
is especially useful in exploratory research where little is known about the phenomenon
of interest (Stewart, 2007; Malhotra, 2012). The goal of the focus group discussions was
to elicit general ideas connected to brand avoidance and get a better understanding of
the reasons for the phenomenon. Convenience sampling as a form of non-probability
samplingwas used for selecting participants for the focus groups due to its cost and time
advantages, which can be considered as an acceptable method for exploratory research
(Malhotra, 2012). A recruitment flyer was designed to recruit participants, while they
were additionally recruited based on personal contacts. In total, 18 participants took
part in the focus group, including both male and female members of Generation Y. The
participants came from Germany, Finland, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Poland and Estonia. All
the participants were students in different programmes within Jönköping University
and were aged between 23 and 32 years. Participants of the focus group were not
informed about the topic of the discussion in advance. Theywere only informed that the
discussion would be about buying goods and consumption and everyone who buys
products would be an appropriate participant.
The focus groups were conducted by a moderator who had a guideline of questions
for directing the discussion, which is a crucial component determining the success of a
focus group (Liamputtong, 2011). This guideline consisted of questions as well as
corresponding probes. In addition to the moderator, one researcher (observer) was
present, whose task was to take notes. The discussions were also recorded. The
focus group commenced with a general discussion about brand avoidance (the specific
brands avoided by participants), followed by questions pertaining to the reasons for
avoiding these brands.
4.1.2 Step 2: follow-up interviews. The second step involved follow-up interviews,
where a number of personal and unstructured depth interviews with focus groups
participants were conducted so as to provide further insight on the issues raised in the
focus groups. A judgemental sampling technique was used based on the agreement of
the participants as well as the judgement of the researchers. In total, four additional
interviews were conducted.
4.2 Data analysis
Initially, data are reduced, i.e. they are selected, simplified, classified and connected. A
key element of this stage is the concept of coding, i.e. themaking sense of the data (Miles,
1994; Malhotra, 2012). Thereafter, the coded data are displayed, which includes
reflecting themeaning and structure identifying the data (Miles, 1994;Malhotra, 2012) to
become familiar with the data. In the existing data, recurring themes and ideas with
regard to the drivers andmotives of the brand avoidance phenomenonwere searched for
and identified. Hence, an initial index of possible drivers and motives of brand
avoidance was set up. This coding process was done using NVIVO, which resulted in
five broadmotives of brand avoidance consisting of several sub-motives at a lower level
of generality (Ritchie and Lewis, 2003). The final stage involved verifying the data to
33
Brand
avoidance
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 U
SP
 A
t 0
6:
59
 1
2 
M
ay
 2
01
7 
(P
T)
generate the most valid interpretation and to make sense of the data collected (Miles,
1994; Ritchie and Lewis, 2003; Malhotra, 2012). Trustworthiness is an important aspect
in qualitative research. In this study, the focus groups and interviews were pretested to
ensure suitability of the guidelines and to enhance the quality of the results.
5. Findings
Participants provided examples of brand avoidance in all industries with no dominant
product category that could be identified. Brands included both low- and
high-involvement products and well-known and lesser-known brands were also
mentioned. It has also been noted that especially when talking about brands that offer
widely spread product portfolios such as brands in the electronics industry, avoidance
was identified at a sub-brand level. For instance, some participants rather avoid using
certain products (sub-brands) of a brand than the brand as such. For example, one
respondent mentioned Sony as a brand but stated that he would only avoid Sony for the
category of cameras but not for TVs or as a brand in general. Examples of brand
avoidance that came up initially during the focus group discussions were related to
either personal experiences or general attitudes that participants had about the brand in
question. Thus, with regard to potential reasons for brand avoidance, it could be seen
that brand avoidance is mostly elicited by personal experience or based an another
person’s negative experiences. Brand avoidance is a relevant concept to this cohort, as
each participant was able to indicate a brand that they avoided.
5.1 Types of brand avoidance
Concerning the question about the types of brand avoidance, it was found that multiple
reasons could be identified. The four reasons identified in the theoretical model (Lee
et al., 2009b) were also identified during the focus group discussions, and quotations
reflecting these are included.
5.1.1 Experiential avoidance. Poor experiences with the product (or service),
inconvenience and issues related to the store experience as suggested by Lee et al.
(2009a) were also identified by participants. Poor experiences with the product resulted
in negative associations, as was the perceived additional effort (hassle) to obtain a
product in a retail outlet and the visual appearance of the store:
I have had bad experiences with so far two of these companies that have cell phone contracts.
They just make everything really difficult. If I buy a bottle of water from there I can’t recycle
it anywhere else but in LIDL. Or if I want to buy the water, I first have to climb somewhere
high, then rip the thing, the plastic. It’s not attractive at all to go there.
5.1.2 Identity avoidance. Participants indicated that another reason for their avoidance
of various products was associated with other consumers who use the product and their
self-concept. This is reflected in their view of the product and the association with the
way in which they view themselves. Reasons for avoiding the product are reflected in
their desire to not be associatedwith a specific group. In the instance of these comments,
the desire to not be associatedwith a particular group of people is particularly evident on
the part of the participants:
[…] I actually think I avoidApple… It’s not even that I don’t like their products, I do like them.
But I do not like to be part of the Apple community.
QMR
19,1
34
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 U
SP
 A
t 0
6:
59
 1
2 
M
ay
 2
01
7 
(P
T)
[…] I would not get it because usually people who use and wear Ed Hardy… yeah, you know
want to copy celebrities and you know that kind of people, yeah I just don’t want to be
connected to them.
5.1.3 Moral avoidance. Issues related to a consumer’s beliefs from a political and social
perspective were also identified by respondents. The behaviour of organisations was
seen as a reason for brand avoidance, including perceptions of their political affiliations
and treatment of their employees:Like Müller. I don’t drink Müllermilch. Do you know Müller? It’s a brand that for example do
a lot of yoghurts, things like dairy products. And they are said to be in national, like right,
extreme right and extremists. Like Nazi.
[…] foxcon, yeah one of the manufacturers [of Apple]. They really have problems, they are
paying only less than 200€ per month for employees there so that’s really really bad working
conditions.…But forme, it is important, I am aware of it and I don’t buyApple, because of this
situation.
Thus, organisational actions identified by the participants were cited as reasons for
avoidance.
5.1.4 Deficit-value avoidance. The value received from the use of the product,
specifically the price paid for a product in relation to the value received from its
ownership, was also highlighted by participants as a reason to avoid brands, as seen in
the comment below:
Apple, because I don’t like the price – quality relations. Because I think it is heavily overpriced,
in my opinion.
These findings thus support themodel proposed byLee et al. (2009b) as discussed earlier
(refer Figure 1) relating to the types and reasons for brand avoidance.
5.2 Advertising as a type of brand avoidance
In addition to the types of brand avoidance originally identified, participants also named
advertising as a further reason for brand avoidance. Comments made related to either
TV or radio commercials, and many of the advertisements identified were not current,
yet participants could still recall the general negative feeling and the resulting brand
avoidance. This is reflected in the following statement:
I used to drink that beer in my country, but then they had this advertising which I really don’t
like and then I stopped to drink it at all. It is actually a good beer, so it is not amatter of quality,
it is not bad quality but just the advertising like the person in this ad is so bad and now I avoid
it. So I continued then to drink another beer.
The follow-up interviews revealed insights into four specific reasons associated with
advertising that participants stated affected brand avoidance.
5.2.1 Content. The content of the advertisement refers to several elements in
advertising such as the message and the storyline. It is an important part of the
advertisement, as it represents the idea and message it wants to convey to the audience.
The findings show that the content of the advertisement is an influencer that an initial
dislike of the advertisement can result in the avoidance of the advertised brand. In
addition to the idea of the advertisement, the creative idea and the execution proved to
influence brand avoidance:
35
Brand
avoidance
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 U
SP
 A
t 0
6:
59
 1
2 
M
ay
 2
01
7 
(P
T)
If I think it’s annoying, if I don’t get this advertisement at all or it’s just a really good
advertisement, I don’t know.… It could be annoyingwhen I think like what on earth was that?
I didn’t understand that at all. … But on the other hand, sometimes you really don’t see the
connection and then I think it’s really annoying.
Another aspect related to the content of an advertisement is the fact that the advert is
perceived as being provocative. It can be argued that the use of violence in this context
is seen as a taboo and has therefore led to avoidance of the advertised brand. Strong
taboo themes have, however, proven to have a negative effect on brand attitudes and
purchase intentions (Sabri and Obermiller, 2012). Consumers react differently to taboos
depending on their sensitivity, and use of taboos may therefore be a risky strategy to be
used in advertising (Sabri and Obermiller, 2012). The participants also revealed that the
use of nudity and sex in certain adverts does not fit the advertised product and is
consequently perceived negatively:
Because it’s how to say, I know like they say inmarketing like sex sells but this is like…This is an
advertisingof cheese, anormal typeof cheese.Likenot someexclusivebut likeanormal cheese that
all people eat. And they put the advertising in a nightclub inwhich thewaitress has a big cleavage
and then the guy with the cheese, take the cheese and throw it in her cleavage and they start like
talking and how to say… they are like hooking up, flirting with each other.
5.2.2 Celebrity endorser. This aspect of avoidance is not connected to the way a
consumer perceives the advertising itself but focuses on the endorser of the product,
making them the target of evaluation. Consumers typically aspire to identify with them
and thus purchase the products the celebrities endorse because the celebrity adds
positive symbolicmeanings to the product (Walker et al., 1992; Apéria, 2004). Celebrities
used in advertising become closely associated with the advertised brand. Consumers
might react either positively or negatively to the advert due to the fact that the celebrity
used is disliked or liked (Louie et al., 2001; Spry et al., 2011). Celebrities have an image,
they transfer that image to the advertised brand (Apéria, 2004), thus disliking a celebrity
can be transferred to disliking the advertised brand and ultimately result in avoiding the
brand. This cohort tends to be positively disposed towards celebrities, viewing them as
attractive, likeable and real:
Yes, I have one brand of toothpaste that I would never get because of the actor that actually
played in the commercial.
While reasons for disliking an endorser can be vague, the negative symbolic meaning
also impacts brand avoidance.
5.2.3 Music. Another reason identified by participants is the music used in a
commercial. As the extensive literature onmusic used in advertising illustrates,music is
one of the most frequently used creative tools in advertising to influence the audience
and their evaluation of an advert (Lantos and Craton, 2012; Shimp and Andrews, 2013).
Music is in general able to elicit both positive and negative emotional responses, which
can lead to avoidance of the brand (Apaolaza-Ibáñez, Zander, and Hartmann, 2010).
Research shows that music affects attitudes and can influence purchase behaviour and
product preferences and could potentially also influence avoidance behaviour (Gorn,
1982; Blair and Shimp, 1992; Lantos and Craton, 2012).
I don’t like advertising if it is just too stupid, or also toonoisy, or just annoying.…Yeah, if I just feel
annoyed by the whole thing. It can be because it is very loud and noisy or through like the music.
QMR
19,1
36
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 U
SP
 A
t 0
6:
59
 1
2 
M
ay
 2
01
7 
(P
T)
5.2.4 Response to the advertisement. This refers to the subjective interpretation of the
receiver of the message, which is part of the communication process (Kotler, 2009). It
represents the last but very important element of the communication process and is
dependent on the receiver. This means that the same advertisement creates potentially
numerous different responses in different viewers (Percy, 2008). In general, this
sub-motive of response can be regarded as a disliking which may not even be described
in detail or on a rational level by the participants but can be seen as a subjective
evaluation and emotional reaction. This can be seen in the vague statements and
descriptions of participants which explain their avoidance with a “stupid”, “annoying”
or “senseless” advertisement:
At least in my country, there are also really stupid advertising for some products … That is
mainly food productswhomake really stupid advertising they use onTV…but because of the
advertising I would just not buy it and didn’t buy it.
6. Discussion
Brand avoidance is a phenomenon associated with branding which has not been widely
researched but which has a major impact on organisations. The purpose of this study
was to investigate the reasons why Generation Y consumers avoid brands.Brand
avoidance was found to be a common and widespread behaviour across different
product categories with reasons differing. A total of five types of brand avoidance have
been identified, namely, identity avoidance, moral avoidance, experience avoidance,
deficit-value avoidance and advertising avoidance. This additional motive of
advertising avoidance was identified as a major reason for avoiding specific brands.
Hence, both similarities as well as differences exist when comparing the results of this
study with the existing framework presented by Lee et al. (2009b), as seen in Figure 2.
It is proposed that advertising as a type of brand avoidance can be connected to four
different reasons, namely, content, the celebrity endorser, music and the response to the
advertisement. As it has been stated by existing literature, advertising is generally able
to influence consumers in deciding what they buy or do not buy. Even though this idea
has, up to this point, not been related to brand avoidance by existing literature,
advertising research supports this idea (Dolliver, 2010). For example, over one-third of
respondents indicated that they avoided buying a brand because it has published
distasteful advertising (Harris Interactive, 2010). Furthermore, 28 per cent of the
participants stated that they have decided to not buy a brand because they disliked the
spokesperson associatedwith it (Harris Interactive, 2010). Negative emotions associated
Experie
Avoida
per
H
inco
env
ence 
ance
Poor 
formance
Hassle/ 
nvenience
Store 
vironment
Identity 
avoidance
Negative
Reference G
Inauthenti
Deindividu
e 
Group
icity
uation
M
Avo
An
C
Moral 
oidance
nti-Hegemony
ountry effects
Deficit-V
Avoidan
Unfam
Aest
insuffi
Foo
Favor
alue 
nce
miliarity
hetic 
iciency
od 
ritism
AAdvertising
Content
Celebrity
Endorser
Music
Response
y 
r
e
Figure 2.
The expanded
framework – five
types of brand
avoidance
37
Brand
avoidance
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 U
SP
 A
t 0
6:
59
 1
2 
M
ay
 2
01
7 
(P
T)
with advertising (such as irritation) have been found to influence the communication
ability of the advertisement. Irritation has been studied and has been found to be linked
not only to the advertisement (content and exposure)(De Pelsmacker and Van Den
Bergh, 1999) but can also be linked to themedia (both online and offline) used (Aaker and
Bruzzone, 1985; Speck andElliott, 1997; De Pelsmacker andVanDenBergh, 1999; Thota
et al., 2012). Research by Speck and Elliott (1997) found that young people were more
likely to avoid television advertising due to advertising being perceived as annoying.
This suggests that advertising can be regarded as a type of brand avoidance, as
identified in this study.
The expanded types of brand avoidance and the reasons associated with each type
are suggested in Figure 2.
In terms ofmanagerial implications, it can be argued that knowledge of the types of
avoidance associated with specific brands affects marketing decisions of products used
by this cohort. Reasonswhy consumers avoid certain brands are diverse and subjective,
yet management and marketing decisions depend on knowledge and understanding of
these types. Counteracting brand avoidance is oftentimes complicated, as it can also be
argued that it is easier to add new brands to the evoked set of consumers, than placing
brands which have been considered but then avoided in the first place, in the
consideration set (Solomon et al., 2013). It could also be argued thatmarketingmanagers
need to be aware of the level of brand avoidance towards their brand, as it may be at a
level about which they do not believe is critical, or that it exists among specific market
segments only (Lee et al., 2009a).
Additionally, marketing actions to counteract brand avoidance can only be taken in
regard to certain types and reasons. In the case of counteracting experiential avoidance,
organisations need to determine the actions necessary to provide the consumer with the
best experience of the product or service. This would comprise not promising benefits
that cannot be delivered to the consumer and reducing the complexity of interacting
with the organisation. This would include customer support and customer service
touchpoints. To counteract potential identity avoidance and moral avoidance,
organisations need tomonitor the way inwhich they are perceived and comments in, for
example, social media regarding their products, their customer service as well as their
corporate behaviour. Thiswill enable them to carry out remedial actionwhere necessary
should, for example, a customer complain about the way in which their product
functions. This also includes acting in an ethical way at all times, as this is regarded as
particularly important to the GenerationY cohort (Aquino, 2012; Lazarevic, 2012). Trust
has been identified as a critical component in the relationship between this cohort and
both brands and organisations (Noble et al., 2009) and this includes their marketing
communication and in the functioning of the organisation. In the case of deficit-value
avoidance, it can be difficult to combat this, as (for example) a brand’s design can be its
biggest strength but might simultaneously be a reason to avoid the brand by certain
consumers. If brands offer special benefits or a superior product with only few
substitutes, this might be a reason for not avoiding the brand and to stop the avoidance,
respectively.
When it comes to advertising and potential brand avoidance, as this cohort does not
respond to traditional marketing, organisations are required to approach this group in a
different way (Lazarevic, 2012). Reaching this group is more complex, as being
connected and technologically savvy means that it can be difficult to make them aware
QMR
19,1
38
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 U
SP
 A
t 0
6:
59
 1
2 
M
ay
 2
01
7 
(P
T)
of products and brands. They use technology to find appropriate products (Parment,
2012) and they are also adept at filtering out messages that they deem to be irrelevant
(Lazarevic, 2012). Regarding the content, this group appreciates humorous messages as
well as satire and honesty (Lazarevic, 2012), but the content needs to be consistent with
the brand identity (authentic) (Lazarevic, 2012). Including visual imagery is also
important, as it is suggested that they react more positively to this type of message
(Aquino, 2012).
The limitations of this research include the general focus of the study, which did not
focus on a specific product category or industry. The use of a qualitative method limits
the inferences that can be drawn and its transferability to other settings. There is also
the limitation associated with research conducted among small groups of participants
as well as the sample selection which also features in this study.
For future research, attention could be paid to investigating reasons associated with
specific brand categories or industries. This phenomenon could also be evaluated using
quantitative methods, potentially linked to experimental scenarios, e.g. unmet quality
expectations, negative service experiences or unethical behaviour, to test their effects on
brand avoidance. Further research could be to determine what advertising-specific
factors influence avoidance behaviour and what type of advertising should be avoided.
This would help marketing managers to plan their advertising campaigns and would
reduce the risks connected with expensive advertising.
7. Conclusion
As every consumer has a brand avoidance story to tell, brand avoidance is common and
a valuable area for researchers, and where limited research has been undertaken. The
study has supported previous findings into the types of brandavoidance identified by
Lee et al. (2009a, 2009b), but also identified an additional reason which could affect this
behaviour, namely, advertising, and specific reasons associated with advertising. This
presents a contribution to the development of knowledge regarding this important
behaviour.
References
Aaker, D.A. and Bruzzone, D.E. (1985), “Causes of irritation in advertising”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 47-57. doi: 10.2307/1251564.
Agrawal, J. and Kamakura, W.A. (1999), “Country of origin: a competitive advantage?”,
International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 255-267. doi: 10.1016/
S0167-8116(99)00017-8.
Apaolaza-Ibáñez, V., Zander, M. and Hartmann, P. (2010), “Memory, emotions and rock’n’roll: the
influence of music in advertising, on brand and endorser perception”, African Journal of
Business Management, Vol. 4 No. 17, pp. 3805-3816.
Apéria, T. (2004), Brand Relations Management: Bridging the Gap Between Brand Promise and
Brand Delivery, 1st ed., Liber, Stockholm.
Aquino, J. (2012), “Gen Y: the next generation of spenders: they’re young, educated, and
tech-savvy: here’s how to get them to pay attention to you”, CRMMagazine, Vol. 16 No. 2,
p. 20.
Arnold,M.J., Reynolds, K.E., Ponder, N. and Lueg, J.E. (2005), “Customer delight in a retail context:
investigating delightful and terrible shopping experiences”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 58 No. 8, pp. 1132-1145. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2004.01.006.
39
Brand
avoidance
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 U
SP
 A
t 0
6:
59
 1
2 
M
ay
 2
01
7 
(P
T)
Astous, A. (2000), “Irritating aspects of the shopping environment”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 149-156. doi: 10.1016/S0148-2963(99)00002-8.
Bailey, A.A. (2004), “Thiscompanysucks.com: the use of the Internet in negative
consumer-to-consumer articulations”, Journal of Marketing Communications, Vol. 10 No. 3,
pp. 169-182. doi: 10.1080/1352726042000186634.
Bakewell, C. and Vincent-Wayne, M. (2003), “Generation Y female consumer decision-making
styles”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 31 No. 2,
pp. 95-106. doi: 10.1108/09590550310461994.
Belk, R. (1988), “Possessions and the extended self”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15 No. 2.
doi: 10.1086/209154.
Balmer, J.M.T. and Gray, E.R. (2003), “Corporate brands: what are they? What of
them?”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37 Nos 7/8, pp. 972-997.
doi: 10.1108/03090560310477627.
Batra, R., Ahuvia, A. and Bagozzi, R.P. (2012), “Brand love”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 76 No. 2,
p. 1.
Belch, G.E. (2012), Advertising and Promotion: An Integrated Marketing Communications
Perspective, 9th ed., global ed./with contributions by Jörg Dietzel. (Ed.), McGraw-Hill/Irwin,
New York, NY.
Bergkvist, L. and Bech-Larsen, T. (2010), “Two studies of consequences and actionable
antecedents of brand love”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 17 No. 7, p. 504.
doi: 10.1057/bm.2010.6.
Berry, L. (2000), “Cultivating service brand equity”, Official Publication of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 128-137. doi: 10.1177/0092070300281012.
Beverland, M. (2006), “The ‘real thing’: branding authenticity in the luxury wine trade”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 59 No. 2, pp. 251-258. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2005.04.007.
Bhattacharya, C.B. and Elsbach, K.D. (2002), “Us versus them: the roles of organizational
identification and disidentification in social marketing initiatives”, Journal of Public Policy
& Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 26-36.
Bitner, M.J. (1990), “Evaluating service encounters: the effects of physical surroundings and
employee responses”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 69-82. doi: 10.2307/1251871.
Blair, M.E. and Shimp, T. (1992), “Consequences of an unpleasant experience with music: a
second-order negative conditioning perspective”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 21 No. 1,
pp. 35-43. doi: 10.1080/00913367.1992.10673358.
Bloemer, J., Brijs, K. and Kasper, H. (2009), “The CoO-ELMmodel: a theoretical framework for the
cognitive processes underlying country of origin-effects”, European Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 43 Nos 1/2, pp. 62-89. doi: 10.1108/03090560910923247.
Bryson, D., Atwal, G. and Hultén, P. (2013), “Towards the conceptualisation of the antecedents of
extreme negative affect towards luxury brands”, Qualitative Market Research: An
International Journal, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 393-405. doi: 10.1108/QMR-06-2013-0043.
Carroll, B. and Ahuvia, A. (2006), “Some antecedents and outcomes of brand love”, A Journal of
Research in Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 79-89. doi: 10.1007/s11002-006-4219-2.
Corbin, J. and Strauss, A. (2008), Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for
Developing Grounded Theory, 3rd edn., SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Cromie, J.G. and Ewing, M.T. (2009), “The rejection of brand hegemony”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 218-230. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.01.029.
QMR
19,1
40
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 U
SP
 A
t 0
6:
59
 1
2 
M
ay
 2
01
7 
(P
T)
Dall’olmo Riley, F. and De Chernatony, L. (2000), “The service brand as relationships builder”,
British Journal of Management, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 137-150. doi: 10.1111/
1467-8551.t01-1-00156.
De Pelsmacker, P. andVanDenBergh, J. (1999), “Advertising content and irritation: a study of 226
TV commercials”, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 5-27.
doi: 10.1300/J046v10n04_02.
Dodds,W.B.,Monroe, K.B. andGrewal, D. (1991), “Effects of price, brand, and store information on
buyers’ product evaluations”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 307-319.
doi: 10.2307/3172866.
Dolliver, M. (2010), “When marketing leads to brand avoidance”, Brandweek, Vol. 51 No. 12, p. 20.
Donovan, R.J. and Rossiter, J.R. (1982), “Store atmosphere: an environmental psychology
approach”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 34-57.
Elsbach, K.D. and Bhattacharya, C.B. (2001), “Defining who you are by what you’re not:
organizational disidentification and the national rifle association”, Organization Science,
Vol. 12 No. 4, p. 393.
Englis, B.G. and Solomon, M. (1995), “To be and not to be: lifestyle imagery, reference groups, and
the clustering of America”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 13-28. doi: 10.1080/
00913367.1995.10673465.
Gorn, G.J. (1982), “The effects of music in advertising on choice behavior: a classical conditioning
approach”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 94-100.
Green, J., Draper, A. and Dowler, E. (2003), “Short cuts to safety: risk and ‘rules of thumb’ in
accounts of food choice”, Health, Risk & Society, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 33-52. doi: 10.1080/
1369857031000065998.
Grisaffe, D.B. and Nguyen, H.P. (2011), “Antecedents of emotional attachment to brands”, Journal
of Business Research, Vol. 64 No. 10, pp. 1052-1059. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2010.11.002.
Grönroos, C. (2006), “On defining marketing: finding a new roadmap for marketing”, Marketing
Theory, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 395-417.
Halstead, D. (1989), “Expectations and disconfirmation beliefs as predictors of consumer
satisfaction, repurchase intention, and complaining behavior: an empirical study”, Journal
of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 17-21.
Harris Interactive. (2010), “Over one-third of americans will not purchase a brand because of a
distasteful advertisement”, available at: www.harrisinteractive.com/NewsRoom/HarrisP
olls/tabid/447/ctl/ReadCustom%20Default/mid/1508/ArticleId/220/Default.aspx (accessed
25 January 2014).
Hogg, M. and Banister, E. (2001), “Dislikes, distastes and the undesired self: conceptualising and
exploring the role of the undesiredend state in consumer experience”, Journal of Marketing
Management, Vol. 17 Nos 1/2, pp. 73-104. doi: 10.1362/0267257012571447.
Holt, D.B. (2002), “Why do brands cause trouble? A dialectical theory of consumer culture and
branding”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 70-90. doi: 10.1086/339922.
Hyunsook, K., Ho Jung, C. and Namhee, Y. (2013), “The motivational drivers of fast fashion
avoidance”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 243-260.
doi: 10.1108/JFMM-10-2011-0070.
Jaiswal, A.K. and Niraj, R. (2011), “Examining mediating role of attitudinal loyalty and nonlinear
effects in satisfaction-behavioral intentions relationship”, Journal of Services Marketing,
Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 165-175. doi: 10.1108/08876041111129155.
Kapferer, J.-N. (2012), The New Strategic Brand Management Advanced Insights and Strategic
Thinking, 5th ed., Kogan Page, Philadelphia.
41
Brand
avoidance
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 U
SP
 A
t 0
6:
59
 1
2 
M
ay
 2
01
7 
(P
T)
Keaveney, S.M. (1995), “Customer switching behavior in service industries: an exploratory study”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 59 No. 2, pp. 71-82. doi: 10.2307/1252074.
Klein, J.G., Ettenson, R. and Morris, M.D. (1998), “The animosity model of foreign product
purchase: an empirical test in the people’s Republic of China”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62
No. 1, pp. 89-100. doi: 10.2307/1251805.
Kotler, P. (1973), “Atmospherics as a marketing tool”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 48-64.
Kotler, P. (2009),Marketing Management, European ed., Prentice Hall, Harlow.
Kozinets, R.V. and Handelman, J.M. (2004), “Adversaries of consumption: consumer movements,
activism, and ideology”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 691-704.
doi: 10.1086/425104.
Lantos, G.P. and Craton, L.G. (2012), “A model of consumer response to advertising music”,
Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 22-42. doi: 10.1108/07363761211193028.
Lazarevic, V. (2012), “Encouraging brand loyalty in fickle generation Y consumers”, Young
Consumers, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 45-61. doi: 10.1108/17473611211203939.
Lee, M.S.W., Conroy, D.M. and Motion, J. (2009a), “Brand avoidance: a negative promises
perspective”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 36, pp. 421-429, Association for
Consumer Research.
Lee, M.S.W., Motion, J. and Conroy, D. (2009b), “Anti-consumption and brand avoidance”, Journal
of Business Research, Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 169-180. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.01.024.
Liamputtong, P. (2011),Focus GroupMethodology : Principles and Practice, Sage Publications Ltd,
London.
Lodes, M. and Buff, C. (2009), “Are generation Y (Millennial) consumers brand loyal and is their
buying behavior affected in an economic recession? A preliminary study”, Journal of
Academy of Business and Economics, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 127-134.
Louie, T., Kulik, R. and Jacobson, R. (2001), “When bad things happen to the endorsers of good
products”, A Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 13-23. doi: 10.1023/A:
1008159717925.
Malhotra, N.K. (2012),Marketing Research: An Applied Approach, 4th ed., Pearson, Harlow.
Mason, J. (2002), Qualitative Researching, 2 ed., Sage, London.
Miles, M.B. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, 2 ed., Sage, Thousand
Oaks, CA.
Noble, S.M., Haytko, D.L. and Phillips, J. (2009), “What drives college- age Generation Y
consumers?”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 62 No. 6, pp. 617-628. doi:
10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.01.020.
Parment, A. (2012), “Generation Y vs Baby boomers: shopping behavior, buyer involvement and
implications for retailing”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 20 No. 2,
doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2012., 12.001.
Percy, L. (2008), Strategic Advertising Management, 3rd ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Piacentini, M.G. and Banister, E. (2009), “Managing anti-consumption in an excessive drinking
culture”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 279-288. doi:
10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.01.035.
Reisenwitz, T.H. and Iyer, R. (2009), “Differences in generation X and generation Y: implications
for the organization and marketers”, Marketing Management Journal, Vol. 19 No. 2,
pp. 91-103.
QMR
19,1
42
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 U
SP
 A
t 0
6:
59
 1
2 
M
ay
 2
01
7 
(P
T)
Riefler, P. and Diamantopoulos, A. (2007), “Consumer animosity: a literature review and a
reconsideration of its measurement”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 24 No. 1,
pp. 87-119. doi: 10.1108/02651330710727204.
Ritchie, J. and Lewis, J. (2003), Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students
and Researchers, SAGE, London.
Sabri, O. and Obermiller, C. (2012), “Consumer perception of taboo in ads”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 65 No. 6, pp. 869-873. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.01.009.
Sandıkcı, Ö. and Ekici, A. (2009), “Politically motivated brand rejection”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 208-217. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.01.028.
Sarkar, A. (2014), “Brand love in emerging market: a qualitative investigation”, Qualitative
Market Research: An International Journal, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 481-494. doi: 10.1108/
QMR-03-2013-0015.
Shimp, T.A. and Andrews, J.C. (2013), Advertising Promotion and Other Aspects of Integrated
Marketing Communications, Cengage Learning, Mason.
Shimp, T.A. and Sharma, S. (1987), “Consumer ethnocentrism: construction and validation of the
CETSCALE”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 280-289.
doi: 10.2307/3151638.
Solomon, M.R., Bamossy, G.J., Askegaard, S. and Hogg, M.K. (2013), Consumer Behaviour: A
European Perspective, 5th ed., Pearson Education, Harlow.
Speck, P.S. and Elliott, M.T. (1997), “Predictors of advertising avoidance in print and broadcast
media”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 61-76.
Spry, A., Pappu, R. and Cornwell, T.B. (2011), “Celebrity endorsement, brand credibility and
brand equity”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 45 No. 6, pp. 882-909.
doi: 10.1108/03090561111119958.
Stewart, D.W. (2007), Focus Groups Theory and Practice, 2nd ed., SAGE, Thousand Oaks, CA,
London.
Thompson, C.J., Rindfleisch, A. and Arsel, Z. (2006), “Emotional branding and the strategic value
of the Doppelgänger brand image”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 70 No. 1, pp. 50-64.
Thota, S.C., Ji, H.S. and Biswas, A. (2012), “Is a website known by the banner ads it hosts?:
assessing forward and reciprocal spillover effects of banner ads and host websites”,
International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 877-905. doi: 10.2501/
IJA-31-4-877-905.
Tse, D.K. and Chan, K.W. (2008), “Strengthening customer loyalty through intimacy and passion:
roles of customer – firm affection and customer – staff relationships in services”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 45 No. 6, pp. 741-756.
Walker, M., Langmeyer, L. and Langmeyer, D. (1992), “Celebrity endorsers: do you get what you
pay for?”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 2, p. 69.
Wilk, R. (1997), Learning to Not-Want Things: Session Summary I am not Therefore, I am: The
Role of Avoidance Products in Shaping Consumer Behavior, paper presented at the
Advances in Consumer Research, Provo, UT.
Corresponding author
Adele Berndt can be contacted at: adele.berndt@jibs.hj.se
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
43
Brand
avoidance
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 U
SP
 A
t 0
6:
59
 1
2 
M
ay
 2
01
7 
(P
T)
	Brand avoidance among GenerationY consumers
	1. Introduction
	2. Theoretical framework
	3. Purpose of the study
	4. Methodology
	5. Findings
	6. Discussion
	7. Conclusion
	References

Outros materiais