The impact of brand evangelism on oppositional referrals towards a rival brand

Abstract

Purpose This study aims to build on the notion of brand evangelism developed by Becerra and Badrinarayanan (2013) by examining how brand relationship variables regarding one brand (i.e. brand loyalty, brand community identification and self-brand connection) influence oppositional referrals to a rival brand (i.e. desire to harm and trash-talking) in the high definition (HD) videogame console industry. Design/methodology/approach A survey of online communities devoted to video gaming was conducted using a sample of 809 respondents, all owners of either a PlayStation or an Xbox. Findings The results show that the desire to harm the rival brand is strongly and positively associated to participation in trash-talking. Brand loyalty is connected to both dimensions of oppositional brand referrals. Consumers’ connection with the brand affects trash-talking only indirectly through the desire to harm. No association is found between identification with the brand community and oppositional brand referrals. Originality/value This study is the first to demonstrate the mechanism linking brand relationship variables regarding a focal brand with consumers’ disparagement of a rival brand, showing that a desire to harm plays a central role. Just as the desire for retaliation drives negative word-of-mouth in the context of an unsatisfactory experience with a brand (Grégoire and Fisher, 2006), the desire to harm drives trash-talking against a rival brand by brand evangelists. This study improves our understanding of the relationships consumers build with their preferred brands and how this relationship may influence their rejection of competing brands with which they do not have direct experience.

Brand negativity: a relational perspective on anti-brand community participation

“…Negative emotions in brand relationships are likely to generate increased oppositional loyalty, that is, loyalty to brands competing with the object of hatred (Japutra et al, 2018). Oppositional loyalty entails the premise that love and opposition go hand in hand, that love for a brand increases the propensity to oppose competing brands, and there is recent evidence that brand communities reinforce such feelings (Kuo & Hou, 2017;Marticotte et al, 2016) and research implies that this could be the case for anti-brand community members (Popp et al, 2016). One consequence of a negative relationship is preference for the competition, as examples of alterbrand communities or counter-brand communities suggest (Cova & White, 2010;Cromie & Ewing, 2009).…”

The evolution of brand management thinking over the last 25 years as recorded in the Journal of Product and Brand Management

“…Studies have analyzed the importance of information, feelings, and experiences that lead to negative outcomes, such as information overload (Hutter et al, 2013), information on crisis situations (Jeon and Baeck, 2016), product recalls (Souiden and Pons, 2009), negative consumer reviews (Ullrich and Brunner, 2015), and guilt (Jeong and Koo, 2015). Recent research also investigates how negative brand feelings rival positive brand feelings (Marticotte et al, 2016) and how brand engagement may be positively or negatively valenced (Hollebeek and Chen, 2014). The assessment that consumers have about an offer over time influences the effect of a negative stimulus about a brand (Ullrich and Brunner, 2015).…”

The role of ideal self-congruence and brand attachment in consumers’ negative behaviour

“…fashion brands). Marticotte et al (2016) argue that brand rivalries provide excellent opportunity to examine consumer attitudes and behaviours linked to oppositional brand referrals (e.g. trash-talking).…”

“…Trash-talking is different from negative WOM since it is the act of insulting rival brands (Hickman & Ward, 2007). Several researchers argue that trash-talking is a form of oppositional brand loyalty (Marticotte et al, 2016;Japutra et al, 2014). Higher congruity between the self-concept and the brand image leads to higher level of loyalty (Wallace et al, 2017).…”