A UNIFIED FRAMEWORK ON BRAND THREAT EFFECTS AND CONSUMER RESPONSES
저자
발행기관
학술지명
권호사항
발행연도
2017
작성언어
English
주제어
KDC
325
자료형태
학술저널
수록면
68-70(3쪽)
제공처
Brand threats are unexpected, widely spread negative brand occurrences that are manifest in various forms such as rumours (Einwiller et al., 2008), negative publicity (Ahluwalia et al., 2000), ethical scandals (Huber et al., 2010; Lisjak et al., 2012; Trump, 2014) and product failures (Dawar and Pillutla, 2000; Ahluwalia et al., 2001). They are quite common in the marketplace with adverse effects on brand reputations and brand equity (Duttta and Pullig, 2011) by thwarting consumers` expected benefits from the brand (Ahluwalia et al., 2000; Dawar and Pillutla, 2000; Dutta and Pullig, 2011).
Due to the frequency and seriousness of brand threats, academic interest in studying the effects of brand threats as well as predicting consumers responses has been rising in the past decade (Swaminathan et al., 2007; Cheng et al., 2012; Lisjak et al., 2012; Trump, 2014). Brand threat literature has evolved over the years from few case studies focusing on organizational response strategies to empirical work documenting cognitive and attitudinal responses by consumers to different types of threats. However, there are still a number of inconsistencies within this loose body of work that requires further research attention. The following section will highlight some of the most imminent controversies within the brand threat literature and thus paving the way for the current review paper to synthesize different streams of research and offer some conceptual clarity on brand threats.
First, with regards to the conceptualization of brand threats, there appears to be no broad agreement on a precise definition of what constitutes a threat at the brand level. Over the past few years, scholars have expressed this notion using words such as negative brand publicity (Ahluwalia et al., 2000;2001; Pullig et al., 2006), brand scandal (Roehm and Tybout, 2006), brand failure (Roehm and Brady, 2007; Cheng et al., 2012), brand-related crisis ( Dawar and Lei, 2009; Dutta and Pullig, 2011), brand misconduct (Huber et al., 2010) and brand transgression (Trump, 2014). While these definitions can be used interchangeably as they reflect the overall characteristic of brand threats; they draw upon different theoretical foundations. As a result, competing views and understandings of brand threats have materialised, resulting in perennial dissensus within the extant literature.
In addition, there is a debate in the literature with regards to the differential effects of brand threat types. The majority of prior research on brand threats has predominantly focused on two types of threat which is product–related brand threat (Ahluwalia et al., 2000; 2001; Cheng et al., 2012; Swaminathan et al., 2007) and values-related brand threats. Product-related threats usually involve defective or dangerous products and reduce a brand's perceived ability to deliver its functional benefits (Dawar and Pillutla, 2000; Pullig et al., 2006; Roehm and Brady, 2007; Dawar and Lei, 2009). Values-related threats, on the other hand can be defined as unexpected events that threaten a brand's perceived ability to deliver expressive or symbolic benefits (Dawar and Lei, 2009; Pullig et al., 2006). They do not involve the product but rather the social or ethical values of the brand (e.g., Pullig et al., 2006). Both types of threats have negative impact such as brand equity, satisfaction and choice likelihood (Dutta and Pullig, 2011), however existing work offer contradictory findings with regards to the degree of damage caused by either type of brand threat. While some studies implicate the product related threats are more damaging to the brand, other studies indicate that values related threats have more negative impact. For instance, product related threats have been reported to damage brand image and trust (Dawar and Pillutla, 2000), lead to consumer brand switching and consequently cause financial losses (Cleeren et al., 2008). On the other hand, Huber et al. (2010) report that a brand's moral threat can be more damaging for consumers` relationship quality with the brand as well as repurchase intention. In addition, Folkes and Kamins (1999) indicate that negative ethical information is perceived as more diagnostic than product attribute information. Additionally, Trump (2014) compared both types of threats (product vs. ethical) in the same study and reported that ethical-related brand threats can be more damaging than product-related threats. This in turn has contributed to growing inconsistencies within the brand threat literature and elaborated the need for more empirical work to reconcile these conflicting streams of research.
An additional layer of controversy within the brand threat literature pertains to the impact of consumer brand relationship in predicting consumer responses. The general assumption is that the stronger the relationship between the consumer and the brand, the more insulated the brand remains from the negative impact of brand threats, however research yield mixed results. While some studies indicate the positive role of strong consumer brand relationship in mitigating the negative impact of brand threats (Ahluwalia et al., 2000; 2001; Einwiller et al., 2006), studies by Roehm and Brady, (2007) and Cleeren et al., (2008) suggest that these positive impacts are only shortlived. While other researchers show that high quality brand relationship may actually result in more negative consumer responses following threat (Hubler et al., 2010).
Lastly, there has not been a unified conceptual framework to predict consumer responses to brand threat; different studies have used different theoretical underpinnings to examine the phenomenon reporting different results. Earlier studies on the subject were quite sparse, apart from a few attempts limited to case studies from public relations and publicity literature, there has been no systematic study of how consumers respond to brand threats (Ahluwaia et al., 2000). A common assumption in that literature was that brand threats in the form of negative publicity is considered more credible and influential than the brand`s marketing communications and therefore will always lead to serious adverse consequences (Bond and Kirshenbaum, 1998). Moreover, consumers were assumed to always respond in a uniform manner (Mgrconi, 1997; Pearson and Mitroff 1993). Although these studies have offered insights into how people process negative information and form evaluations, their findings were limited to experimental contexts in which subjects have to evaluate unfamiliar individuals.
Although, several theoretical models have been proposed to understand consumers' responses to different types of brand threats (Ahluwalia et al., 2000; Dawar and Pillutla, 2000; Dawar and Lei, 2009; Huber et al., 2010; Roehm and Tybout, 2006; Cleeren et al., 2008; Dutta and Pullig, 2011), the findings of these studies reported mixed findings. Additionally, this body of work failed to present a unifying theoretical framework that predicts how consumers respond to negative information about commercial brands that they are familiar with nor did they identify the factors that could moderate the response strategies (Ahluwalia et al., 2000).
Therefore, the current study seeks to review the existing literature on brand threats to propose an integrative classification framework that predicts consumer responses to different types of brand threats. Specifically, this review will offer four important contributions. Firstly, the review will offer a holistic conceptualization of brand threats and its different forms. Secondly, it will highlight existing studies that demonstrate consumer responses to brand threats and the important moderating factors captured in previous studies clustered around four main categories: corporate responses, threat-related characteristics, consumer characteristics, and consumerbrand relationships. Thirdly, the review will propose a theoretical framework and a number of propositions that predict the conditions under which consumers pursue specific responses to brand threat. The proposed framework will also identify a number of situational factors and individual traits that moderate may consumer responses. Lastly, the review will conclude by highlighting underdeveloped theoretical intersections pertaining to the long term effects of brand threats and suggesting potentially fruitful directions for future inquiry. The above contributions will integrate brand threat research in marketing and management theory within a single organizing framework. Moreover, by consolidating past results and setting the stage for further efforts, this review will seek to foster greater integration of fresh perspectives from other disciplines such as social psychology, sociology, consumer research and management to broaden the scope of research on band threat.
분석정보
서지정보 내보내기(Export)
닫기소장기관 정보
닫기권호소장정보
닫기오류접수
닫기오류 접수 확인
닫기음성서비스 신청
닫기음성서비스 신청 확인
닫기이용약관
닫기학술연구정보서비스 이용약관 (2017년 1월 1일 ~ 현재 적용)
학술연구정보서비스(이하 RISS)는 정보주체의 자유와 권리 보호를 위해 「개인정보 보호법」 및 관계 법령이 정한 바를 준수하여, 적법하게 개인정보를 처리하고 안전하게 관리하고 있습니다. 이에 「개인정보 보호법」 제30조에 따라 정보주체에게 개인정보 처리에 관한 절차 및 기준을 안내하고, 이와 관련한 고충을 신속하고 원활하게 처리할 수 있도록 하기 위하여 다음과 같이 개인정보 처리방침을 수립·공개합니다.
주요 개인정보 처리 표시(라벨링)
목 차
3년
또는 회원탈퇴시까지5년
(「전자상거래 등에서의 소비자보호에 관한3년
(「전자상거래 등에서의 소비자보호에 관한2년
이상(개인정보보호위원회 : 개인정보의 안전성 확보조치 기준)개인정보파일의 명칭 | 운영근거 / 처리목적 | 개인정보파일에 기록되는 개인정보의 항목 | 보유기간 | |
---|---|---|---|---|
학술연구정보서비스 이용자 가입정보 파일 | 한국교육학술정보원법 | 필수 | ID, 비밀번호, 성명, 생년월일, 신분(직업구분), 이메일, 소속분야, 웹진메일 수신동의 여부 | 3년 또는 탈퇴시 |
선택 | 소속기관명, 소속도서관명, 학과/부서명, 학번/직원번호, 휴대전화, 주소 |
구분 | 담당자 | 연락처 |
---|---|---|
KERIS 개인정보 보호책임자 | 정보보호본부 김태우 | - 이메일 : lsy@keris.or.kr - 전화번호 : 053-714-0439 - 팩스번호 : 053-714-0195 |
KERIS 개인정보 보호담당자 | 개인정보보호부 이상엽 | |
RISS 개인정보 보호책임자 | 대학학술본부 장금연 | - 이메일 : giltizen@keris.or.kr - 전화번호 : 053-714-0149 - 팩스번호 : 053-714-0194 |
RISS 개인정보 보호담당자 | 학술진흥부 길원진 |
자동로그아웃 안내
닫기인증오류 안내
닫기귀하께서는 휴면계정 전환 후 1년동안 회원정보 수집 및 이용에 대한
재동의를 하지 않으신 관계로 개인정보가 삭제되었습니다.
(참조 : RISS 이용약관 및 개인정보처리방침)
신규회원으로 가입하여 이용 부탁 드리며, 추가 문의는 고객센터로 연락 바랍니다.
- 기존 아이디 재사용 불가
휴면계정 안내
RISS는 [표준개인정보 보호지침]에 따라 2년을 주기로 개인정보 수집·이용에 관하여 (재)동의를 받고 있으며, (재)동의를 하지 않을 경우, 휴면계정으로 전환됩니다.
(※ 휴면계정은 원문이용 및 복사/대출 서비스를 이용할 수 없습니다.)
휴면계정으로 전환된 후 1년간 회원정보 수집·이용에 대한 재동의를 하지 않을 경우, RISS에서 자동탈퇴 및 개인정보가 삭제처리 됩니다.
고객센터 1599-3122
ARS번호+1번(회원가입 및 정보수정)