Baixe o app para aproveitar ainda mais
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
Compartilhar