Hating in plain sight: The hatejacking of brands by extremist groups

Abstract

The adoption of brands as an identity marker for hate groups has been extensively noted for decades. The use of specific brands, often covertly, allows hate groups to have identity markers without the social stigma ascribed to historical hate symbols. With high-profile events such as the ‘Unite the Right’ march in Charlottesville, hate groups have utilized media coverage to increase their visibility and, by extension, the brands that they have co-opted. Such unwanted associations for organizations are defined by this research as a hatejack, whereby an extremist group publicly presents linkage to a brand, typically to claim legitimacy by the association. The covert, hide-and-seek nature of the hatejack also allows extremist groups to identify with each other without public or legal scrutiny. The dangers of a hatejack have been exacerbated by two-way symmetrical models of public relations that focus on online and social media. Popular press books such as Brand Hijack seem to suggest that organizations would do well to cede ownership of their identity and allow the construction of brands by external publics. This emphasis, however, has allowed for hate groups to more readily adopt brands and publicly proclaim a connection to the organization that does not exist. This research examines cases of hatejacks in which brands become unwitting instruments of extremist groups and seeks to identify emerging and consistent themes across cases that merit further investigation by researchers and actions by practitioners.

Moderating manipulation: Demystifying extremist tactics for gaming the (regulatory) system

“…The range of merchandising tactics and commodities (identity, information, products) indicates that there are more benefits to the strategy than simply increasing monetary value. As noted by Brenton and Petreka‐Brenton (2020), Miller‐Idriss (2018) and Betuel, 2020, generating social identification and bypassing taboos or restrictions are concrete benefits of hatejacking and commercialization. Furthermore, engaging with ‘borderland’ cultures provides pathways for radicalization and recruitment along with commodification, a prime benefit also noted by Miller‐Idriss (2022) in her discussion of mixed martial arts as a site of extremist engagement.…”

“…The first tactic that makes up merchandising is the long-used practice of 'branding', or in this case appropriating existing brands to create extremist group identity and affiliation markers. Benton and Peterka-Benton (2020) use the term 'hatejack' to describe extremist co-optation of nonextremist brands as group identity markers. Brand co-optation is particularly, but not solely, tied to clothing both historically (e.g., skinhead cultures of the 1980s) and contemporarily (e.g., the Proud Boys hijack of Fred Perry shirts).…”

Marketing to Prevent Radicalization: A First Attempt at Delimiting the Field

“…Relatedly, another area that needs more academic attention would be brand “hatejacking” (Benton and Peterka-Benton 2020; Buntain et al 2022; Siano et al 2021). Hatejacking occurs when extremist or hate groups co-opt a brand against their will.…”

Redefining brand hijacking from a non-collaborative brand co-creation perspective

“…The academic and professional literature on brand hijacking is very diverse and overlaps different fields of study: branding and marketing communications (Wipperfürth, 2005;Cova and Pace, 2006;Fournier and Avery, 2011;Xanthopoulos et al, 2016;Luoma-aho et al, 2018;Benton and Peterka-Benton, 2020;Vollero et al, 2020), corporate reputation (Langley, 2016), risk management (Hofman and Keates, 2013;Mancusi-Ungaro, 2014), internet commerce (Wunder, 2009), law (Nurten and McDermott, 2009;Ramsey, 2010), computer fraud and security (Milam, 2008;Jain et al, 2015) and even tourism management (Denisselle, 2019). Multiple approaches to the interpretation of the phenomenon emerge.…”