Chinese Consumer with Brand Avoidance

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

 Literature Review

This chapter describes the theoretical framework of this study. Extensive discussion of anti-consumption and brand avoidance of relevant literature ensures an understanding of brand avoidance and relationships with previous research. The existing brand avoidance model is the central theme of the study. Finally, we will introduce Chinese female’s cosmetics consumers.
It seen as a given, that consumers buy brands or products which will improve their situation or has a positive influence on them. People might buy products from a brand because of the perceived quality. Other people might buy brands because it is an integral part of their identity, etc. (Lee et al., 2009).
Relatively speaking, the adverse effects of brands or products on consumers may lead to customer avoidance behavior, thereby unnecessarily preventing people from adding value to a brand (Holt, 2002; Kozinets & Handelman, 2004; Muniz & Hamer, 2001; Thompson, Rindfleisch, & Arsel, 2006).
Many consumer researchers have investigated the “positive consumption” of brands or products, while the “negative consumption” has still not been fully looked into (Banister & Hogg, 2004). Many researchers believe that understanding what consumers don’t like is just as important as knowing what they do like (Patrick, MacInnis, & Folkes, 2002; Wilk, 1997).
In this article, the author will focus on brand avoidance. Because investigation on existing brand avoidance is rather limited, utilizing existing responses found in literature may be an important source of information in order to help identify possible reasons for avoiding brands (Lee et al., 2009).
By studying the available literature, three identified non-consumption categories of anti-consumption can be found: rejection, restriction and recycling (Li et al., 2011). Refusing to consume means that consumers exclude certain products or services from the consumption cycle. This rejection may be for functional, symbolic or based on moral reasons.

Anti consumption

Anti-consumption can be literally defined as “against” or “oppose” consumption (Agarwal, 2013). When consumers refuse to consume the products of a particular brand, this behavior might spread out to other consumers (Zavestoski, 2002). This manifests both as an activity and an attitude (Cherrier, 2009).
“Anti-constellation” serves as a significant theory of brand avoidance (Hogg and Bannister, 2001). The anti-constellation consists of two kinds of anti-consumption behavior, « non-choice and counter-choice. » Non-choice consists of three conditions: affordability, availability, and accessibility. Non-choice refers to the fact that consumers are not intuitively buying brands and products because they are unavailable, inaccessible, and / or too expensive (Lee et al., 2009a). In other words, services or products may exceed consumer conditions due to shortage of funds or market unavailability. In contrast, « anti-choice » is because the service or product is not compatible with the consumer’s preferences and therefore will not be selected even at the consumer’s conditions. Anti-selection consists of three parts: disgust, giving up and avoiding (Hogg & Bannister, 2001).

Brand hate

Hate is probably the most intense negative emotion that consumers may have in general. It is therefore extremely damaging if hate of consumers is focused on a brand. Because of the strong subjectivity and volatility of this matter, brand hate tends to be ignored as a research topic most of the time, making this subject even more complicated to brands to avoid.
Some scholars believe that there are at least three kind of different research for brand hatred. They use the negative emotional adjustment of consumers to conduct a more in-depth study of the powerful influence of brand avoidance.
• Number one, brand relations:
recent literature calls for more research on the negative impact of consumer and brand relationships (Fournier and Alvarez, 2013; Park et al., 2013).
• Number two, user generated internet content:
there has been some literature on consumers which are creating forums to gather other people with the same ideas (hatred of a brand) and will create and be active in “hate groups”. These “hate groups” are used by individuals to share their negative feelings on a brand and share these feelings with other individuals with similar opinions. This can escalate to planning and execution of actions against the target of the hatred. (Hollenbeck and Zinkhan, 2009; Krishnamurthy and Kucuk, 2009). Generally speaking, the bigger more popular the brand, the more attention they will pay to this phenomenon. According to the so-called “negative dual” theory, consumers’ perceptions have a very important impact on brands, because the support of consumers can make a brand well-known, but in return, dissatisfied consumers can destroy a brand as well (Kucuk, 2008; 2010).
• Number three, consumer services:
the literature on service marketing shows why consumers generate hatred when they encounter unsatisfactory consumer services (Grégoire et al., 2009; Johnson et al., 2011). These emotional factors can have a negative impact on companies and brands, and cause the result that consumers avoid spending or talking about it.
Grégoire et al. (2009) argue that brand hatred is divided into desire for revenge and desire to avoid. The desire for revenge is defined as « customers who punish the company for damages caused by the bad experience they have suffered, and the desire to avoid is defined as « the customer quits and refuses any interaction with the company. » These two emotions lead to different behaviors. The desire for revenge is a positive confrontation against the company and the brand, related to punishment, and will produce real revenge. The desire to avoid is negative and non-confrontational, and even actively to avoid confrontation, consumers will firmly escape from their relationship with any of the company or brand, usually shows as consumers refuse to associate with the company or brand. Most of the reasons of these two desires come from a bad service experience, and these two can even coexist.
Johnson et al. (2011) define “hate” as the most powerful emotional factor for consumers from the current brand- or service-related adverse events. The main representative behavior is revenge. In their empirical research, Johnson et al. (2011) proved that brand hate can be also a manifestation of shame. They found that shame or feeling shame is a significant link in the process of making consumers show annoying emotions.
Alba and Lutz (2013) argue that brand hate is a condition in which consumers are “taken hostage” by companies. For example, due to high switching costs, regional monopolies or other aversion to the formation of barriers to expression. The result of this hatefulness is that consumers will show disappointment and dislike of the brand through social media, launch a negative discussion of the brand in specific forums on the Internet, and transmit the brand to other consumers in the daily interaction. The negative information thus affects more consumers. Therefore, « brand hate » is defined as « real brand aversion. »
Romani et al. (2012) argue that hate is part of the consumer’s negative sentiment in the emotional expression of the brand, so the feeling of hating should be seen to be a very extreme form of dislike of the brand.
Bryson et al. (2013) define brand hate as “a strong negative emotional impact of consumers on brands”. The literature describes four conditions that brand hate may generate: the country of origin of the brand, the negative evaluation of the products by the customer, the negative stereotype of the brand user, and the social performance of the company. Brand hate can lead consumers to start or deliberately avoid or reject brands, and even expressly reject them. Negative evaluations and bad brand image, the goal of resisting and destroying brands are typical brand hatreds.
Because of the above research on consumers’ experience of brand hate, Hegner., et al. (2017) found that this led to three behavioral outcomes, namely negative word of mouth, brand retaliation and brand avoidance. Negative brand perception is harmful to both consumers and brand and can lead to economic losses for the company. It can be found more valued data from the negative information of the brand, so in order to avoid brand hate, it is necessary to effectively manage negative brand relationships (Fournier & Alvarez, 2013).

Brand rejection

Brand avoidance can be generally defined as the framework why consumers deliberately reject brands (Lee et al., 2009a). Brand rejection means the entanglement of undesired self as well as undesired eventual status (Hogg & Banister, 2001). Hogg and Banister (2001) point out the conception of the undesired self, namely, the opposite of the ideal self.
« And consumers are expected to consider whether brands can enhance their self-image when they consume, so consumers will refuse products or services that do not add to their lives” (Lee et al., 2009a).
Ray (2009) believes that brand rejection can occur before and after purchase. The pre-purchase refusal is driven by understanding the psychological state of other consumers, which creates a negative judgment on the brand. This means that even before the purchase, the state of the consumer is not conducive to the brand in question. Again, this pre-emptive refusal may be a response to a collective analysis of « known » information. It may, however, even be possible that the brand is immediately rejected without any assessment. The refusal generated after purchase is based on an assessment of consumption. A bad consumer experience can eliminate any consumer’s feelings about the brand, and even make the brand disappear forever as far as they are concerned.
Symbolic consumption expresses positive and negative implications associated with the decisions of the consumer. Whether a brand summons a positive or negative user self-image, can have an effect on symbolic consumption and brand rejection. The ultimate motivation for rejecting a brand is the undesired self (Hogg & Banister, 2001).
Consumers are more likely to buy brands that generate a feeling of unique self-identity. As the level of consumption rises, the ability of brands to create unique self-identification declines. Consumers may end up with a negative perception of the brand, which can lead them to an unwelcome self-concept, which in return leads to brand rejection.

Brand boycott

Lee et al (2009a) believe that brand boycott and brand avoidance will occur simultaneously. Resisting a decision is sometimes considered to be due to a consumer’s dissatisfaction with a service or product on the market. This occurs after having had a bad consumer experience and, therefore, the decision is made not to buy certain brands. Inappropriate business practices may also lead to service boycotts (Friedman, 1985). Human rights, failed business strategy decisions, and unethical business activities are the main reasons for brand resistance (Makarem & Jae, 2015).
Consumers will resist companies that engage in unethical business activities. This is because service is a concept related to ethics and values. Consumption of services or products is one reason for consumers to resist brands (Makarem & Jae, 2015). More consumers who are concerned about corporate social responsibility will eventually lead to service boycotts. Consumers can participate in a variety of topics through social media in order to better understand their role in society. As a result, the reputations of brands and companies have become more sensitive and vulnerable (Makarem & Jae, 2015).
Because of the popularity of social media, consumers are free to build resistance organizations and effectively spread the message to millions of consumers (Makarem & Jae, 2015). Social media has become a platform for consumers to use their own consciousness to influence other consumers. Individuals can effectively and quickly spread the strategy and the reason for boycotting brands to family, friends and millions of social media users. Consumers use social media platforms such as Facebook, WhatsApp, Snapchat, and WeChat (a Chinese WhatsApp counterpart) as tools to disseminate information about the service providers they would like people around the world to resist.

Brand avoidance

Brand avoidance refers to “a phenomenon in which consumers deliberately choose to stay away from or reject a brand” even if the brand or product is available and affordable (Lee et al. 2009, p. 170). From a consumer perspective, this may be because the brand does not meet the consumer’s requirements and expectations. According to known literature, Lee et al. (2009a) four aspects of brand avoidance are pointed out, namely experience, identity, ethics and deficit value. This model was extended by Knittel et al. (2016), adding a fifth aspect to the original model, advertising.

General brand avoidance model

Experience Avoidance

There are three main reasons for avoiding experience: poor product quality or performance, unsatisfactory prices, and poor store environments (Lee et al., 2009b).
A bad practical experience is often the cause of experience avoidance (Lee et al., 2009a). Dissatisfaction usually occurs when the product or service experience is lower than expected. The actual experience may be better or worse than expected, and uncertain negative effects can lead to brand avoidance in some cases (Lee et al., 2009b).
Brand building is therefore necessary to make commitments to customers and strive to meet all customer standards. This is especially important for popular brands, since bigger brands generally have higher customer expectations. (Berry, 2000; Balmer & Gray, 2003). Consumer expectations are determined by factors such as the product itself, the brand or previous product experience, brand connotation and symbolic elements (Oliver, 1980). Consumers form a negative view of the brand upon the nasis of former hands-on experience of certain branded product or service (Lee et al., 2009b).
If consumers are not treated properly after having experienced a bad performance of a brand, they will, as a result be disappointed and may in future avoid the brand or the service entirely.
Another way of saying this is that when a consumer gets an unsatisfactory product or service, they did not get good after-sales service, cause it cost too much time and extra money, which means it does not worth to get this service. This is situation will cause brand avoidance as well (Knittel et al., 2016). Poor consumer service experiences which can be the reason consumers avoid brands, include:
• Inconvenience
• Price
• Failure of critical services
• Corporate response and processing of service failure outcomes
• Ethical issues
• Attractiveness of competitors (Keaveney, 1995)
These reasons can be drivers of consumer change or factors that lead to brand avoidance (Lee et al., 2009a). Finally, Kotler et al (1973) argue that a well-designed store environment can appeal to consumers and may make them more willing to buy which is a counter-factor for brand avoidance.

 Identity avoidance

Identity avoidance refers to the inability of a particular brand to fulfill the identity requirements of a particular consumer (Lee et al., 2009b).
Consumers build their identity by buying and using brands or products. Because of this, they buy products that not only meet their needs but also meet their identity requirements. Consumers will choose brands that appeal to them based on their own preferences. Brand promise is a factor that appeals to consumers. Unattractive brand promises will be avoided because consumers will not use them in order to not make themselves unpopular (Lee et al., 2009c).

1. Introduction 
1.1 Problem discussion
1.2 Research purpose
1.3. Delimitation
1.4. Key terms
2. Literature Review 
2.1. Anti consumption
2.2 Brand hate
2.3 Brand rejection
2.4 Brand boycott
2.5 Brand avoidance
2.6 Chinese Consumers
2.7 Chinese Consumer with Brand Avoidance
3. Methodology 
3.1 Research philosophy
3.2 Research Approach
3.3 Research Design
3.4 Method
3.5 Secondary Data
3.6 Data analysis
3.7 Trustworthiness
4. Findings
4.1 Experiential Avoidance
4.2 Identity Avoidance
4.3 Moral Avoidance
4.4 Deficit-Value Avoidance
4.5 Advertising
5. Analysis
5.1 Experiential Avoidance
5.2 Identity Avoidance
5.3 Moral Avoidance
5.4 Deficit-Value Avoidance
5.5 Advertising
6. Conclusion
6.1 Research Result
6.2 Suggestion for further research
Reference
Appendix
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT