Cultural Meanings and Consumers' Discourses about Their Brand Abandonment.

AutorDiniz, Fillipe
CargoReport

Introduction

Brands and branding have become a central topic in marketing literature and managerial activities (Allen, Fournier, & Miller, 2008; Schroeder, 2015). From a cultural perspective, brands are cultural resources that resonate and co-create the cultural milieu in which they are embedded (Holt, 2006). In this sense, more than just a sign or a name, brands are carriers of meaning and value, reflecting broad societal, cultural, and ideological codes (Schroeder, 2015). For these reasons, academic and market researchers have put a great deal of effort into understanding how brand meanings are created and perpetuated in relation to and through cultural discourses (Allen et al., 2008; Holt, 2005; Thompson, 2004).

Although we know a lot about how meanings are created through interest, consumption and affiliation, remarkably little work has been done in the marketing field to understand cultural meanings spotlighted in consumers' discourses about their brand abandonment. Suarez and Chauvel (2012) define abandonment as the process of giving something up which was previously consumed. As such, brand abandonment refers to the process of reducing or eliminating consumption of previously valued and consumed brands. The present research contributes to expanding our comprehension of brands by addressing two distinct yet closely related questions: (a) Considering the repertoire of meanings attached to brands and consumers' commitment to this distancing behavior, what types of brand abandonment exist? (b) What discourses are enacted by consumers through brand abandonment? The research uses a qualitative methodology to collect and analyze data obtained from in-depth interviews with fourteen Brazilian consumers who gave up or more precisely abandoned two different iconic brands: Coca-Cola (Holt, 2005) and Fiat (Suarez & Belk, 2017).

Previous studies of consumption abandonment addressed the phenomenon as an unwanted consequence of failure or conflict situations providing the impetus for consumers to give up certain suppliers (Jiang, Zhan, & Rucker, 2014; Prentice, 2014). In understanding abandonment as resulting from dysfunctional relationships, the existing literature presents a theoretical gap, failing to broadly understand how cultural meanings contribute to brand abandonment. As our study suggests, this cultural perspective complements extant studies, evidencing abandonment that occurs even when consumers are satisfied. The study analysis presented herein illustrates cultural discourses used by consumers to give meanings and socially negotiate their brand abandonment. Thus, brand abandonment is framed as an enabler of social distinctions and narratives, highlighting two discrete discourses promulgated and perpetuated by consumers: (a) Life evolution, and (b) Rationality, self-control and sovereignty.

The research also responds to recent calls for greater understanding of the processes of brand depreciation and consumers' loss of interest (Parmentier & Fischer, 2015). Unlike previous studies that investigated meanings created by antibrand activists (Giesler, 2012; Izberk-Bilgin, 2012), this research investigates distancing and symbolic departures created by regular consumers in their more routine movement away from their previously preferred brands.

The analysis presents three types of brand abandonment: (a) contingent, (b) balanced, and (c) aversive, evidencing multiple possibilities for distancing behaviors. Although aversive abandonment promulgated by activists or dissatisfied customers are more vocal and visible, it is fundamental for academics and brand managers to understand the entire spectrum of distancing dynamics.

The components of this paper are as follows: first, the literature review presents and frames our understanding of the discourse and abandonment concepts including a presentation of existing theoretical gaps. After presenting the methods used in the study, the analysis articulates the types of brand abandonment and interprets two different cultural discourses underlying brand abandonment. Finally, there is a discussion of the research implications and directions for future research.

Delineating Abandonment

Loss of customers has always haunted companies. In marketing literature, this topic has been treated from a variety of perspectives and terminologies: termination of the association, withdrawal, disengagement, discontinuation, uncoupling and break-ups (Dwyer, Schurr, & Oh, 1987); churn (Lemmens & Croux, 2006); switching behavior (Jiang et al., 2014); exit (Hulbert, Pitt, & Ewing, 2003); customer defection (Prentice, 2014); skip (Anderson & Jaggia, 2012); disadoption (Fournier, Alvarez, & Avery, 2012; Lehmann & Parker, 2012); and abandonment (Hogg, Banister, & Stephenson, 2009; Suarez, 2014; Suarez & Chauvel, 2012).

In most studies, abandonment is not in itself the object under investigation, but a consequence or by-product of the range of processes examined, such as satisfaction, loyalty, switching behavior, etc. Recently, Lehmann and Parker (2012) called for a more systematic attention to disadoption in an effort to integrate perspectives into a unified theory. They define disadoption as "the process of cessation or substantial reduction in the use of a previously valued behavior or possession" (Lehmann & Parker, 2012, p. 313). The authors stress the specificity of this phenomenon differentiating it from choice and adoption behaviors, since it is not a binary choice (yes or no), but a process that can be gradual or partial and filled with uncertainties. Disadoption might include comings and goings and is seen as quite different from consumption decisions. In every case, however, disadoption is always supported by prior experiences as consumers know what they are disadopting.

Suarez and Chauvel (2012) present a broader concept, defining abandonment as the process of giving up something previously consumed. While the term disadoption suggests a decision that was made by the consumer, abandonment also includes non-reflective dynamics; e.g. abandoning without effectively making the decision, and other non-choice situations, such as when the product is no longer within the consumer's means. The present paper uses the term abandonment for the sake of consistency and to denote the focus on cultural rather than cognitive aspects related to this process. Category abandonment is different from brand abandonment. In the first case, consumers are not interested in the consumption anymore. This is the case when someone quits smoking or sells a car, without buying a new one to substitute for the previous one. The present research advances abandonment discussion, addressing consumers who continue to buy the category, but decide on a different brand, thus distancing from a previously preferred product.

Hogg, Banister and Stephenson (2009) depict differences and articulation of avoidance, aversion and abandonment. While aversion is more affective, involving dislikes, disgusts and revulsion, avoidance refers to the act of staying away from something. Abandonment is usually related to avoidance, but not always to aversion, since consumers may abandon neutral or even beloved products/brands.

Discussing brand avoidance is distinguished specifically from abandonment, because you can avoid something you never consumed. Lee, Motion and Conroy (2009) affirm that there are three reasons for consumers to avoid a brand. The first one they called experiential, which is dealing with the conflict between consumers' expected and actually perceived quality, translating those impressions into dissatisfaction with the product. Second is identity avoidance, which is related to the symbolic consumption of brands. As consumers seek a personal and social identification through consumption, brands that don' t match the image they are trying to convey are rejected. Finally, there is a moral issue as motivation for rejection. This is the case when consumers avoid a brand based on its values and impact on society.

The process of brand abandonment was peripherally addressed through the lens of brand relationship (Fournier, 1998). Fournier (2014) suggests that brand disadoption can be triggered both by consumers and companies. The author describes possible mismatches between brands and consumers as motivation for break ups. Sometimes, the mismatch preexists the relationship, and in other cases, results from changes in consumers' lives or, in some cases, shifting in brand quality and positioning. Consumers may also disadopt brands when they feel betrayed by a company' s inadequate behavior, such as ignoring complaints, thus delivering inattentive or rude service. Fournier (2014) reminds us that even if consumers break-up with a brand, the relationship is not completely over, but simply changes its form. Former consumers continue to maintain some form of relationship with the brand, even though it becomes a negative one, characterized by disappointment and rage. When addressing relationship ruptures, Fournier (1998) generally describes dyadic dynamics, occurring between the consumer and a specific brand. However, little is known about socio-cultural discourses enacted through brand abandonment.

Thompson, Rindfleisch and Arsel (2006) suggest that consumers avoid brands when their emotional-branding promises are viewed as inauthentic. With brands that violate their own emotional promises, there is greater susceptibility to doppelganger brand image, that is, a family of disparaging images, stories, parodies and criticisms that circulate in popular culture, competing with the emotionally resonant meanings suggested by brand management. Parmentier and Fischer (2015) investigated how fans or users themselves foster doppelganger brand images, thus contributing to the process of audience dissipation of serial brands. Muniz and Schau (2005) investigate abandonment promoted by the producer. The research reveals the complex interplay...

Para continuar a ler

PEÇA SUA AVALIAÇÃO

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT