Who is more responsive to brand activism? The role of consumer-brand identification and political ideology in consumer responses to activist brand messages

Abstract

Purpose Through activism, brands participate in the sociopolitical controversies that shape society today. Based on social identity theory, this study aims to examine the moderating effects of consumer–brand identification (CBI) and political ideology in explaining consumer responses to brand activism. Furthermore, the role of perceived marginalization that can arise in the case of consumer–brand disagreement is explored. Design/methodology/approach The hypothesized effects were tested in three experiments. Study 1 (n = 262) and Study 2 (n = 322) used a moderation analysis, which was supplemented by a mixed design analysis with repeated measures in Study 1. In Study 3 (n = 383), the mediating effect of perceived marginalization by the brand was tested using a moderated mediation model. Findings The results show that strong CBI as well as a conservative ideology buffer the negative effects of consumer–brand disagreement on brand attitude and word-of-mouth intentions. In the case of agreement with a brand’s stance, no direct or interactive effects of brand activism on consumer responses occur. Perceived marginalization by a brand mediates the effects of brand activism. Originality/value This study extends the “love is blind” versus “love becomes hate” debate to the realm of brand activism and finds evidence for the former effect. It also contributes to the research on political consumption by highlighting the role of political ideology as an important boundary condition for brand activism. Perceived marginalization is identified as a relevant risk for activist brands.

Purpose is the new branding: understanding conscientious purpose-driven marketing and its impact on brand outcomes

“…Moreover, according to SGT, consumers behave in ways consistent with how they see themselves so that they feel motivated to be loyal to brands that construct and reinforce their self-perceptions (Tuškej et al, 2013). For instance, recent research identifies that consumer-brand identification helps explain consumer responses to brand activism (Haupt et al, 2023). Hence, in a CPB context: H6.…”

“…Brand activism can be considered an evolution of CSR (Parris and Guzm an, 2023) and is defined as an emerging marketing tactic for brands seeking to stand out in a fragmented marketplace by taking public stances on institutionally contested issuesi.e. for which the society has yet to reach consensus (Haupt et al, 2023;Pimentel et al, 2024). As such, through activism, the brand becomes a leading change agent through the support for or opposition to one side of a partisan sociopolitical issue, using a "built-in divide" in stakeholders' sentiment (Key et al, 2023).…”

“…Brand activism can be considered an evolution of CSR (Parris and Guzmán, 2023) and is defined as an emerging marketing tactic for brands seeking to stand out in a fragmented marketplace by taking public stances on institutionally contested issues – i.e. for which the society has yet to reach consensus (Haupt et al. , 2023; Pimentel et al.…”

What drives business-to-business brands to be conscientious?

“…Conscientious strategies such as CSR (Guzmán and Davis, 2017; Vallaster et al , 2012) and sustainability (Ishaq and Di Maria, 2020; Kumar and Christodoulopoulou, 2014) have been developed by brands for decades to respond to the expectations and connect more closely to the values and interests, of consumers and stakeholders (Swaminathan et al , 2020). More recently, sociopolitical activism has been added to the strategy mix as a response to current social interests (Haupt et al , 2023; Kapitan et al , 2022; Ketron et al , 2022; Schmidt et al , 2022; Vredenburg et al , 2020). Past B2C and B2B research demonstrates how brand conscientiousness results in higher brand performance and equity (c.f., Cowan and Guzmán, 2020; Lai et al , 2010; Muniz et al , 2019; Muniz and Guzmán, 2023).…”

“…COVID-19 added a new level of consumer scrutiny as, post pandemic, consumers are reflecting on how brands performed under pressure to deliver value on their promise and purpose (Accenture, 2020). There is ample discussion and previous research that supports that being conscientious is beneficial for business-to-consumer (B2C) brands (Ahmad et al , 2022; Hajdas and Kłeczek, 2021; Haupt et al , 2023; Ketron et al , 2022; Schmidt et al , 2022; Vredenburg et al , 2020; Wannow et al , 2023), but lack of clarity remains regarding the importance of conscientious strategies for their business-to-business (B2B) counterparts (Beitelspacher and Getchell, 2023; Markovic et al , 2023).…”