How Fashion Luxury Brands Communities Express Negativity: a Netnographic Approach

Home , Bulgari, Netnography, Super Bock Group

MASTER IN ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

How Fashion Luxury Brands Communities Express Negativity: A Netnographic Approach

Mafalda Jacques dos Santos Barata M 2020

HOW FASHION LUXURY BRANDS COMMUNITIES EXPRESS NEGATIVITY: A NETNOGRAPHIC APPROACH

Mafalda Jacques dos Santos Barata

Dissertation

Master in Economics and Business Administration

Supervised by: Amélia Maria Pinto da Cunha Brandão, PhD

2020

Bibliographic Note

Mafalda Jacques dos Santos Barata was born on 15th July of 1995 in Porto, Portugal.

In 2013 she enrolled in the Management course in Católica Porto Business School. In September 2015 she moved to Amsterdam to experience tu study during fall semester at HvA - Hogeschool Van Amsterdam (University of Applied Sciences). The six months she spent abroad were crucial for her personal growth as well as for her academic expansion, given that HvA promotes both experimental and theoretical education. The biggest challenge at a academic level was learning of SAP’s software functionalities within a fictional company inside the university, which gave her tangible insights about working in a company. In January 2017 she concluded her bachelor degree with an average grade of fourteen out of twenty, with the intention to enroll in a master’s degree in September of that year. During that period, she got an internship in the Super Bock Group in marketing department. For three months she participated in the internationalization of their products to Spain.

By September 2017 she had enrolled in the Master’s in Economics and Business Administration at FEP School of Economics and Management, with the aim to expand her knowledge in the management field as well as learning about economics. During the master’s degree, she perceived her vocation for marketing studies and therefore chose a marketing project to conclude her Master’s degree.

Acknowledgments

Firstly, I would like to dedicate this work to my grandfather, Eng. João Jacques de Sousa. For 25 years you were my biggest life supporter, admirer and teacher. Thank you for teaching me how to be resilient, ambitious, patient and a hard worker. There are no sufficient words to thank you for turning me the person I have become. I am deeply happy to have had the chance for you to read part of this work and saw your pride. Then, you turned to be my inner strength and motivation to conclude this cycle of my life. Hope you are proud of me, wherever you are. Also, the conclusion of this academic cycle would not be possible without the great support and guidance of my supervisor Amélia Brandão. I am and always will be grateful for your demanding requests and expectations on this work, making me want to perform better in each day of this process. I feel so lucky to have crossed my path with you and to have gained so much knowledge from you. Then, I am deeply thankful to my parents and grandmothers, who always strive for giving me the best education. Your unconditional love, support, motivation, patience and high expectations encouraged me to work hard every day of my life, to achieve all the success you believed I could reach. Thank you for celebrating each small personal and academic victory with me. Knowing your happiness and pride on the conclusion of this work, means the world to me. To my sister Carolina, thank you for your support. You have always known what to say and how to help. Also, I do know you are my biggest fan, which inspires me to be a better person, student, and professional. Finally, but with enormous importance, I would like to show my gratitude to all my closest friends, they know who they are. All of your comprehension, support, motivation, kindness and care were fundamental during these months. A special thanks to my best friend Catarina, who is my life and academic partner. All the days and nights we spent together working on our projects, all the emotional support, friendship and fellowship, were the most important part of this journey and will always be remembered with love and happiness.

ii.

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this paper is to understand what are the antecedents of consumers’ negativity towards luxury brands in the context of online communities, as well as the ways they express such negativity. Methodology: A symbolic and non-participatory netnographic approach is implemented on two online plataforms: An anti-brand community and Social Media Network – Twitter. Focusing on two luxury brands (Louis Vuitton and Michael Kors), a non-intrusive analysis of public content is conducted. Findings: Consumers negativity towards luxury brands is commonly based on the non- delivering of promised values of quality, service, hedonic experiences, and self-identity creation. Also, misconducting of corporate social responsibility actions proved to be a source of negativity. Consumers, thus, express their displeasure through brand hate, brand avoidance, brand aversion and anti-consumption behavior, especially engaging in brand boycotting activities. Finally, user-generated content shows to have a great importance on influencing other consumers’ perceptions and feelings. Research Limitations: A netnographic approach limits the generalization of results. Also, this study is limited to two luxury fashion brands, which do not allow generalizations to other brands and other categories of the luxury industry. Furthermore, given the used platforms is not possible to outline a valuable generational profile. Practical Implications: Brand practitioners must ensure they deliver the promised values to consumers on every stages of their experience. Additionally, companies should play more attention to the new generation of consumers and their unprecedented values and beliefs, by performing an exemplar corporate social responsibility conduct. Originality/Value: The investigation of antecedents and outcomes of negativity in the luxury industry reflects a gap in the literature. Also, the new values of younger consumers have only recently been target of attention. Therefore, the combining of these two themes provide useful insights for luxury brands management, as well as extend previous literature about both brand negativity and luxury brands.

Keywords: Negative relationships; Brand Negativity; Anti-Brand Communities; Luxury; Social Media

iii.

Resumo

Objetivo: Este artigo visa compreender quais são os antecedentes da negatividade dos consumidores em relação às marcas de luxo, no contexto das comunidades online, bem como as formas como expressam essa negatividade. Metodologia: É implementada abordagem netnográfica simbólica e não participativa em duas plataformas online: uma comunidade anti-marca e uma rede social - Twitter. O estudo foca-se em duas marcas de luxo (Louis Vuitton e Michael Kors), e é conduzida uma análise não intrusiva do conteúdo público. Resultados: A negatividade dos consumidores em relação às marcas de luxo é geralmente baseada no não cumprimento da proposta de valor assente na qualidade, serviço, experiências hedônicas e criação de identidade. Adicionalmente, uma má conduta da responsabilidade social das empresas demonstrou ser também fonte de negatividade. Os consumidores, portanto, expressam o seu descontentamento através de ódio pela marca, evitação, aversão e eliminação do consumo, especialmente envolvendo-se em atividades de boicote à marca. Finalmente, o conteúdo gerado online mostra ter uma grande importância na influência das percepções e sentimentos dos outros consumidores. Limitações do estudo: uma abordagem netnográfica limita a generalização dos resultados. Além disso, este estudo está limitado a duas marcas de moda de luxo, o que não permite generalizações para outras marcas e outras categorias da indústria de luxo. Além disso, as plataformas utilizadas não permitem traçar um perfil geracional valioso. Implicações práticas: os gestores devem garantir que entregam os valores prometidos aos consumidores em todas as etapas da sua experiência. Por outro lado, as empresas devem prestar mais atenção à nova geração de consumidores e aos seus valores e crenças, desempenhando uma conduta exemplar de responsabilidade social. Originalidade/valor: a investigação dos antecedentes e resultados da negatividade na indústria de luxo reflete uma deficiência na literatura. Ao mesmo tempo, os novos valores dos consumidores mais jovens só foram alvo de atenção recentemente. Portanto, a combinação desses dois temas fornece visões úteis para a gestão das marcas de luxo, bem como estende a literatura anterior sobre a negatividade da marca e marcas de luxo.

Palavras-Chave: Relações negativas; Negatividade em relação à marca; Comunidades anti marca; Luxo; Redes Sociais

iv.

INDEX 1. INTRODUCTION...... 1

2. LITERATURE REVISION ...... 4

2.1. NEGATIVE CONSUMER-BRAND RELATIONSHIPS ...... 4 2.2.1 Brand hate ...... 5 2.2.2. Brand avoidance ...... 10 2.2.3. Brand Aversion ...... 11 2.2.4. Anti- consumption ...... 12 2.2.5. Brand Boycotting ...... 13

2.3. ANTI-BRAND COMMUNITIES ...... 14

2.4. SOCIAL MEDIA COMMUNITIES ...... 16

2.5. LUXURY CONSUMER-BRAND RELATIONSHIPS ...... 18 2.5.1. Consumer negativity towards luxury brands...... 21

3. METHODOLOGY ...... 23

3.1. A NETNOGRAPHIC APPROACH ...... 23

3.2. CONTEXT OF RESEARCH ...... 25

3.3. OBJECT OF THE STUDY ...... 28

3.4. DATA SELECTION ...... 30 3.4.1. Criteria for Data Selection ...... 31

3.5. DATA COLLECTION ...... 33

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ...... 39

5. CONCLUSIONS ...... 55

5.1. THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS ...... 55

5.2. MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS ...... 59

5.3. LIMITATIONS AND FURTHER INVESTIGATION ...... 61

6. FINAL CONSIDERATIONS ...... 63

BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES ...... 65

ATTACHMENTS ...... 76

ANNEX I: TOP RANKED LUXURY BRANDS VALUATION ...... 76

ANNEX II: THE 15 MOST POPULAR LUXURY BRANDS ONLINE IN 2019 ...... 79

vi.

ANNEX III: LUXURY BRANDS VALUATION ...... 80

ANNEX V: TOP LUXURY BRANDS: ONLINE MARKET SHARE ...... 81

ANNEX VII: DISTRIBUTION OF TWITTER USERS WORLDWIDE ...... 82

vi.

Table Index

TABLE 1: REVIEW OF MAJOR CONTRIBUTIONS FOR BRAND HATE CONCEPTUALIZATION ...... 6 TABLE 2: DETERMINANTS OF CONSUMERS' LUXURY VALUE PERCEPTIONS ...... 20 TABLE 3: INFORMATION REGARDING PLATFORMS INTEGRATING THE STUDY'S OBJECT ...... 32 TABLE 4: AXIAL CODING SCHEME ...... 34

TABLE 5: TWITTER CONTENT'S ANALYSIS FREQUENCY ...... 35 TABLE 6: ANALYSIS OF CONTENT'S FREQUENCY ON "PISSED CONSUMER" FORUM ...... 37 TABLE 7: TOP RANKED LUXURY BRAND VALUATION ...... 76 TABLE 8: THE 15 MOST POPULAR LUXURY BRANDS ONLINE IN 2019 ...... 79 TABLE 9: LUXURY BRANDS VALUATION ...... 80 TABLE 10: TOP LUXURY BRANDS: ONLINE MARKET SHARE ...... 81

Illustrations Index

FIGURE 1: WEBSITE VISITS COMPARING LUXURY MILLENNIALS TO OVER 35S ...... 29 FIGURE 2: CONDUCTED ADVANCED SEARCH ON TWITTER ...... 33

GRAPH 1: WEIGHT OF EACH CATEGORY ON THE TOTAL LOUIS VUITTON´S POSTS ...... 38 GRAPH 2: WEIGHT OF EACH CATEGORY ON THE MICHAEL KORS' TOTAL POSTS ...... 38

Abbreviations Index

CSR: corporate social responsibility NDJ: negative double jeopardy SM: social media WOM: word of mouth

vii.

1. Introduction

In an era of global digitalization, consumers have understood their empowerment as brand’s co-creators as they are able to influence brands’ meanings (Pentina, Guilloux et al. 2018). However, prior research focus predominantly on the positive outcomes of these influences, given that it is argued that expressions of brand love leads to spread brand awareness and positive influences on brands’ image (Batra, Ahuvia et al. 2012). Also, positive consumer’s identifications and high levels of attachment appears to be determinant in the luxury industry, since the products and services offered aim to satisfy the consumers’ seeking for hedonic experiences, highest quality and services standards, conspicuous values and identity building processes (Kapferer 1997, Rodrigues and Rodrigues 2019). However, recent studies highlighted the impact of consumers’ negative perceptions and feelings towards brands. Indeed, several scholars committed to understand the possible antecedents of brand hate (Curina, Francioni et al. 2019, Kucuk 2019) and other types of negativity such as brand avoidance (Lee, Conroy et al. 2009, Odoom, Kosiba et al. 2019), brand aversion (Park, Eisingerich et al. 2013), anti-consumption (Chatzidakis and Lee 2013, Cambefort and Pecot 2020, Lee, Motion et al., 2009b) and brand boycotting (Klein, Smith et al. 2004, Yuksel, Thai et al. 2020). Hence, the recent findings about consumer’s negativity towards brands began to link such behaviors with the advent of social media platforms (Othman, Azmi et al. 2019). Indeed, consumers use these networks to constantly interact with each other, establish strong connections and share their experiences and lifestyle. Also, these tools are increasingly playing a role on consumers’ purchase decisions, especially on youngers’ ones, since they seek for information online, compare brands, follow trends, and are highly influenced by their peers (Pentina, Guilloux et al. 2018). Consequently, the spread of negative information can threat a brand’s image and reputation, as higher the engagement with negative word-of- mouth, higher the chance to consumers turn to be co-destructors of brands’ values and meanings (Lund, Scarles et al. 2019). If before brands saw these networks as opportunities to get better insights about consumers’ tastes, now they are facing the possibility of be threaten by them. This is particularly challenging for luxury brands since they have historical foundations on superior quality, performance and reputation. Indeed, these brands faced a paradox

regarding their settling on social media platforms. Although these brands’ entrance on these networks was mandatory to be competitive in contemporary markets, since the nature of the social media implies uncontrollable user-generated content regarding brands, it might compromise their scope of exclusiveness and historical high control of their communication channels (Pentina, Guilloux et al. 2018). In line with the above, this study aims to understand the drivers of consumers’ negativity towards luxury brands, and how they express it in online communities. Even though these contributions have been crucial for understanding consumer behavior, they tend to be general and, therefore, covering negative perceptions for a wide range of industries and not specifically focused in the luxury sector. Thus, the literature has a gap in understanding the antecedents and outcomes of consumers’ negativity towards luxury brands. Given that, this study aims to answer two questions as following: RQ1: What are the antecedents of consumer negativity in the context of fashion luxury brands in online communities? RQ2: How consumers express different types of negativity in the context of fashion luxury in online communities?

In this context, is performed a symbolic netnographic analysis in this investigation, since it have gained popularity in marketing studies due to its benefits regarding the study of online user-generated content. This is a qualitative research method that consists of studying online platforms/communities and analyzing consumers’ interactions, behaviors and perceptions, allowing researchers to outline a representation of online social connections. Through the collection and interpretation of public data, researchers observe spontaneous conversations in a naturalistic an unobtrusive way. Thus, firstly archival data is collected, which means that researcher retrieve and copy useful data directly from virtual communities, and then with the reflective data conducts the study, which depends on researcher’s interpretation of the online interactions (Kozinets 2002). By performing this study, previous literature about consumers’ negativity in the fashion luxury sector is extended (Bryson, Atwal et al. 2013). More precisely, insights about the new generations and their perceptions towards luxury values are given, as well as fill the existent gap in literature in associating valuable contributions of brand negativity with the luxury markets. Also, it provides a better understanding about the ability of the social media

networks to spread negative information and its permanence on consumers’ memories (Darke, Ashworth et al. 2010) The study is divided in six main chapters. The following section, Chapter 2, contains a review of previous researcher about consumer negativity towards brands, anti-brand communities and social media networks implications on markets, as well as a background about luxury brands and its transformations over the last decades. Then, on Chapter 3, the methodological approach is explained as well as the conducted studies are described in detail. Chapter 4 is dedicated to presenting the study’s empirical results and make linkages with previous valuable literature. In Chapter 5, the main theoretical and managerial implications of this investigation are discussed, followed by the implicit study’s limitations and proposals for further research. Finally, in Chapter 6 the main conclusions of the study are provided.

2. Literature Revision

In this section, an analysis of existent contributions related to the main purposes of this study is conducted. Pertinent studies about Negative Consumer-Brand Relationships (brand hate, brand avoidance, brand aversion, brand boycotting) were analyzed, followed by Anti-Brand Communities and Social Media Communities’ dynamics understanding. Then, and due to the application of the study to the luxury sector, significant theories about Luxury consumption are presented, as well as the development of Luxury Consumer-Brand Relationships. Alongside with the literature revision, other similar studies that were relevant to construct theoretical models are clearly stated.

2.1. Negative Consumer-brand relationships

Even though the major literature focuses on positive consumer-brand relationships (Carroll and Ahuvia 2006, Albert, Merunka et al. 2008, Batra, Ahuvia et al. 2012, Albert and Merunka 2013, Leventhal, Wallace et al. 2014, Vernuccio, Pagani et al. 2015, Alvarez and Fournier 2016), lately the negative emotions and perceptions towards brands have been given more attention by scholars (Park, Eisingerich et al. 2013, Kucuk 2016, Zarantonello, Romani et al. 2016, Wu, Qin et al. 2018).

Several studies mention brand love and its positive outcomes for companies such as customer’s loyalty and trust (Batra, Ahuvia et al. 2012, Fetscherin, Guzman et al. 2019). Brand love can be defined as the passion and emotional attachment to some brand (Carroll and Ahuvia 2006, Leventhal, Wallace et al. 2014). This attachment means a strong connection between brand and consumer’s self-concept (Park, MacInnis et al. 2010). As well as positive connections may lead to attachment and brand love, negative feelings towards brands can result in brand aversion (Park, Eisingerich et al. 2013), brand avoidance (Grégoire, Tripp et al. 2009, Rindell, Strandvik et al. 2014, Knittel, Beurer et al. 2016, Lee, Motion et al., 2009b), anti-consumption (Hogg, Banister et al. 2009, Hoffmann 2011, Chatzidakis and Lee 2013, Hoffmann and Lee 2016, Lee and Ahn 2016, Lee, Motion et al., 2009b) and brand hate (Kucuk 2016, Zarantonello, Romani et al. 2016, Kucuk 2018, Zarantonello, Romani et al. 2018, Kucuk 2019), among others.

Interestingly, humans have a natural tendency to retain bad emotions and experiences, creating bad stereotypes quicker than they are able to remember good experiences (Baumeister, Bratslavsky et al. 2001, Darke, Ashworth et al. 2010). Accordingly, consumers can engage in long-term commitments of brand distrust and rejection, creating damaging effects on companies and on other consumers’ perceptions (Sandıkcı and Ekici 2009).

Furthermore, and according to the “negative double jeopardy” concept, strong brands have disadvantages over weaker ones, as the former are commonly targeted of anti-branding action. In fact, the advent of the Internet empowered consumers over companies and there are several online spaces, such as websites, forums or blogs, where consumers can express their displeasure towards brands (Kucuk 2008, Kucuk 2010).

2.2.1 Brand hate

After being neglected for years in literature, lately brand hate has been given more importance in several marketing studies (Kucuk 2016, Zarantonello, Romani et al. 2016, Wu, Qin et al. 2018), enabling to improve the concerns about anti-brand movements and the relevance as management interest by brands (Zarantonello, Romani et al. 2016, Veloutsou and Guzman 2017). Additionally, the presence and expression of hatred is increasingly threatening for companies due to the ability to be instantaneously and globally widespread through social media and Internet (Curina, Francioni et al. 2020), especially because negative experiences tend to be more memorable than pleasurable ones (Hegner, Fetscherin et al. 2017). Psychology scholars identify hate as a complex emotion, composed by primary and secondary emotions such as “anger”, “irritation”, “disgust”, “contempt”, “fear” and “rejection” (Sternberg 2003, Sternberg 2005). People deal with hatred differently, and therefore adopt different strategies towards it. Indeed, there are individuals who choose to use attack strategies by injuring or insulting the hatred target, while others have high control of their emotions so they prefer to distance themselves from the target, using avoidance strategies (Zarantonello, Romani et al. 2016). As stated above, brand hate is a recent phenomenon that is increasingly focusing its attention on marketing research. Thus, despite the insufficiency of studies, some researches sought contributions for its conceptualization, as labelled on table 1 (Curina, Francioni et al. 2020).

Table 1: Review of major contributions for brand hate conceptualization Authors Contribution to the definition of brand hate (Date) Identification of the “Negative Double Jeopardy” effect on the Internet, Kucuk according to which the most valuable brands attract more anti-brand (2008) sites than the less valuable ones. Sheeran (2002) defines brand hate as “the extreme negative affective Bryson et. al component of attitude towards a brand”. Hence, it can be reproduced in (2013) avoidance or rejection behaviors, or in pejorative actions such as negative word of mouth, public protesting or boycotting. Brand hate may come from a failure in the consumer-brand relationship, Johnson et which harms consumer’s self-concept. Therefore, feelings such shame al. (2011) and insecurity may lead to anti-brand actions (Johnson, Matear et al. 2011). Zarantonello Brand hate has two components. The active hate includes feelings such et al. as anger, contempt and disgust, while passive hate embraces feelings of ( 2016) fear, disappointment, shame and dehumanization. Hegner et al. Conceptualize hate as a more intense emotional feeling than brand (2017) dislike, which consumers feel toward a brand. Alba and Suggest that brand hate could arise from a condition in which there are Lutz high exit barriers, such as monopoly situations and high switching costs, (2013) leading people to feel “true brand disgust” (Alba and Lutz 2013). Romani et Perceived inequalities or norm violations by companies may result in al. hatred and anti-brand actions, especially when there is a high consumer (2015) empathy (Romani, Grappi et al. 2015). Defined brand hate as “consumers’ detachment from a brand and its Kucuk associations as a result of consumers’ intense and deeply held negative (2016) emotions such as disgust, anger, contempt, devaluation and diminution...” (Kucuk 2019). Developed a multidimensional conceptualization of brand hate. Firstly, unidimensional structure is constituted by three levels of hate (cold, cool and hot) in hierarchy, which encompass different levels of disgust, contempt and anger. When these are combined different consequences Kucuk may arise, such as brand switching, private complaining, public (2019) complaining, brand revenge, brand retaliation and willingness to make financial efforts to hurt brands. Multidimensional structure comprises different merging of these single-brand hate, leading to an elevated level of hate which dangerous for companies (Kucuk 2019).

Source: Adapted from Curina et al. (2020)

2.2.1.1. Determinants of brand hate Psychology and marketing scholars identify some main determinants of brand hate (Bryson, Atwal et al. 2013, Hegner, Fetscherin et al. 2017, Wu, Qin et al. 2018, Zarantonello, Romani et al. 2018). Dissatisfaction due to bad performance is the most prevailing reason for brand hate. (Bryson, Atwal et al. 2013, Hegner, Fetscherin et al. 2017). When a product or service fail to meet consumer’s expectations regarding quality, benefits, type of service, price, delivery, repairs, refunds, among other categories, it may originate negative attitudes such as complaints and negative word of mouth (WOM) (Bryson, Atwal et al. 2013, Curina, Francioni et al. 2019). Similarly, disharmony between brand’s image and customer self-image is pointed as a cause of brand hate (Wu, Qin et al. 2018). Since individuals use brands as identity builders, they might distance themselves from brands that are inconsistent with their self-concept (Malär, Krohmer et al. 2011, Lee, Motion et al., 2009b). Indeed, Hogg and Banister (2001) showed that with regard to negative stereotypes, individuals might abstain from consuming products/services that are associated with those stereotypes, so they are not potentially identified with an avoidance group (Bryson, Atwal et al. 2013, Curina, Francioni et al. 2019). Likewise, brands enable social position establishment (Malär, Krohmer et al. 2011), thus if it does not support or depreciate the consumer’s social role, the negative self-connection may lead to brand hate (Wu, Qin et al. 2018). Another potential driver of brand hate is related to corporate social responsibility (CSR). Nowadays individuals are becoming increasingly aware of ethical, social and environmental concerns, thus a company’s behavior or action that may be potentially considered by consumers as unacceptable because legal, moral or social corporate wrongdoing can also incite hatred. Contrarily to other antecedents, this determinant goes beyond consumer’s tastes or company’s performance, rather is ethical and societal focused (Curina, Francioni et al. 2019). Firm’s behaviors that disrespect human rights, that damage the environment or are corporate irresponsible, are common sources of dissatisfaction towards brands and, consequently, are contributors to activism against brands (Romani, Grappi et al. 2013, Hegner, Fetscherin et al. 2017, Wu, Qin et al. 2018, Curina, Francioni et al. 2019). Furthermore, brand hate can arise from negative WOM (Wu, Qin et al. 2018). Although this is a consequence of brand hate, it has been shown that private and public WOM has impact on consumers’ behaviors and perspectives (Romani, Grappi et al. 2012).

Finally, Bryson et. Al (2013) highlighted that, beyond the above mentioned determinants of hate, the luxury sector might be a target of major scrutiny, due to the country of origin of offered products, and costumer dissatisfaction with service and experience, since these consumers have higher expectations toward brands. Additionally, the literature identifies major consumer’s sensitivity to negative brand stereotypes in the luxury sector (Bryson, Atwal et al. 2013, Curina, Francioni et al. 2019)

2.2.2.3. Outcomes of brand bate As stated above, consumers might develop different attitudes towards feelings of hate, which could be passive or active (Zarantonello, Romani et al. 2016). The former comprises “take flight” strategies as avoiding or switching brand, while the later refers to “fighting” strategy, whereby consumers seek revenge. Regarding the fighting intentions, Grégoire et al. (2010) divide them into indirect and direct strategies. Indirect strategies refer to negative WOM, while direct ones include revenge and retaliation. The main difference between these two is that retaliation appears to be a short-term action, while revenge is a consumer’s long- term commitment into hurting and damaging brands (Fetscherin 2019b). Thus, the three main characterizing feelings of brand hate (disgust, contempt and anger) lead to different actions. When there is no closeness or intimacy with the brand, a disgust feeling may arise and lead to switching brand, avoiding the hatred one. Additionally, consumers are more prone to share negative experiences than positive ones, leading them to engage in negative WOM, either private or public. The main difference between both of these is that private complaining aims to warn family or friends about possible dissatisfactions, while public ones reach a larger audience and, on one hand might threaten the brand’s image, but on the other hand offers firms’ the possibility to amend errors and retain costumers (Fetscherin 2019b). Contrarily, contempt leads to destructive and punitive actions, in which the goal is to harm the company, ending the relationship with it and, sometimes, encouraging others to avoid the brand (Romani, Grappi et al. 2013). Therefore, retaliation reveals intentionally destructive behaviors towards a brand, in which the main goal is to achieve equity rather than harm the brand. Yet, revenge is based on anger feelings and has the clear intention to hurt the brand (Fetscherin 2019b). Finally, the willingness to make sacrifices to hurt the brand is a strong demonstration of hatred. Indeed, as consumers are willing to pay premium prices to obtain a certain product or brand, they might also do the same sacrifices to hurt the brand

when it does not meet their expectations. These include, for example, paying for posts on anti-brand websites or complaint forums, as well as court action (Fetscherin 2019b). Therefore, the companies’ challenge relies on providing spaces for consumers to express their opinions and using them as a healthy and constructive advantage. Perhaps, this action could minimize consumers’ levels of disaffection and contempt (Romani, Grappi et al. 2013).

2.2.2.5. Brand hate management by companies Depending on the determinants of brand hate, companies might use different strategies to manage it. Indeed, when hatred arises in self-neutral consumers due to a company’s bad performance, recovery strategies such as apologizing and compensation are usually successful. Contrarily, lovers who turn into haters are unlikely to be recovered (Johnson, Matear et al. 2011, Kucuk 2016, Ahmed and Hashim 2018, Zarantonello, Romani et al. 2018). Indeed, Hegner et al. (2017, p. 18) stated “the most loyal consumers could become the most severe haters, if they feel betrayed by the company” (Curina, Francioni et al. 2019). According to the negative double jeopardy concept, strong companies are more likely to be a target for anti-branding communities. Brands that are extremely loved and hated at the same time are designated as polarized (Osuna Ramírez, Veloutsou et al. 2019). Polarized brand’s managers should deal with regular complainers in the short run, but focus their efforts in managing anti-brand communities in the long run (Kucuk 2008, Kucuk 2010). Consequently, the brand polarization concept assumes a large number of people, who are opposite-minded regarding their feelings towards a brand (Osuna Ramírez, Veloutsou et al. 2019). These brands should understand that they have groups of lovers and haters, therefore wise strategies can be taken as opportunities, instead of fighting against anti-brand communities (Monahan, Espinosa et al. 2017). Indeed, literature gives empirical evidence that consumers who are engaged in brand love tend to resist to negative information about the brands (Batra, Ahuvia et al. 2012) and act in defense of their loved brands (Ahluwalia, Burnkrant et al. 2000). Thus, Hate-Acknowledging Advertising might be a powerful Brand Hate strategy. This approach is based on the launching of viral campaigns, aiming to create reactions from both haters and lovers. Hence, the public defense and positive WOM would be stronger than when faced with traditional marketing stimulus (Monahan, Espinosa et al. 2017).

Similarly, brand rivalry1 can be considered as a type of polarization, in which the feelings of love and hate among the supporters and detractors, of the two rival brands, are taken into consideration (Osuna Ramírez, Veloutsou et al. 2019). These individuals join brand communities and effectively draw distinctions between brands, creating a unique positioning (Hickman and Ward 2013). Consequently, by creating inter-firm rivalry, companies are, perhaps, promoting inter-consumer rivalry, making consumers act in defense of loved brands and communicating their distinctive attributes on social media conversations, generating brand awareness (Berendt, Uhrich et al. 2018). Finally, firms should prevent any social, moral or legal wrongdoing by embracing social causes, being environmentally friendly, encouraging sustainability and promoting fair and adequate labor conditions (Curina, Francioni et al. 2019).

2.2.2. Brand avoidance

Individuals develop different emotions regarding brands (Romani, Grappi et al. 2012), as well as they find different meanings for brand’s value constellation (Lee, Conroy et al. 2009). Brand avoidance is a phenomenon whereas “consumers deliberated choose to keep away or reject a brand” (Lee, Conroy et al. 2009), although and it is applicable when consumers gather the necessary means (financial and/or not) to purchase that specific brand (Iyer and Muncy 2009, Knittel, Beurer et al. 2016, Odoom, Kosiba et al. 2019). Brand avoidance differs from other negativity towards brands in some aspects. Firstly, when compared to brand hate, the implicit feelings are distinctive since consumers might avoid a certain brand without necessarily disliking or even hating it. Instead, they avoid brand due to beliefs or ideologies that make them desire to “keep away” from the brand. Also, brand avoidance is individual-based and has not an implicit punishment desire, which differs from other negativity such as boycotts, which are usually social/group performed with the aim to penalize brands (Odoom, Kosiba et al. 2019). Concerning to grounds of brand avoidance, Odoom, Kosiba et al. (2019) synthetised five main types of avoidance: moral, identity, defic-value, exprimental, and advertising related.

1 Brand rivalry have been documented in literature over the time, for example Apple versus Microsoft Phillips- Melancon, J. and V. Dalakas (2014). "Brand rivalry and consumers’ Schadenfreude: The case of Apple." Services Marketing Quarterly 35(2): 173-186. Coke versus Pepsi Hamer, L. O. (2001). "Us versus them: oppositional brand loyalty and the cola wars." ACR North American Advances.

Accordingly, political, social and cultural beliefs which diverge from the consumer’s ones might lead to avoidance, as well as unethical companies’ behaviors such as discrimination, unfair trade practices, immoral labour conditions, and so forth. Additionally, some incongruence might happen between a brand’s image and consumer’s self-concept, consequently leading to a desire to distance themselves from the brand, once it is seen as a “negative reference group”. Deficit-value refers to an avoidance based on the low perceived cost-benefit, and it does not imply past experiences. Saying that, consumers may choose to avoid brands which they find extremely expensive, brands that are unfamiliar to them which increases the risk of the purchase, or brands whose promised values are seen as deficient. Experimental avoidance result from consumer’s disappointment with brand performance, either on a functional or an emotional level. The discrepancy between consumer’s expectations and actual experience may also lead to other forms of negativity, such as brand hate. Finally, brand’s advertising itself has been pointed as a source of avoidance since ad’s content might cause negative impacts and feelings on consumers, however, it is also linked to ones identity. If a consumer does not feel empathy with the storytelling, chosen celebrity or testimonials, or even slice-of-life, it might result in negative reactions (Romani, Grappi et al. 2013, Popp, Germelmann et al. 2016, Odoom, Kosiba et al. 2019).

2.2.3. Brand Aversion

For years, scholars have focuses their studies on the relation between people’s self-identify and brands (Sprott, Czellar et al. 2009, Van Doorn, Lemon et al. 2010), whereby brand attachment is the greatest connection (Park, Eisingerich et al. 2013). However, an opposite concept has emerged – the aversion – in which the incompatibility between the two identities generate consumer-brand distance (Park, Eisingerich et al. 2013). Correspondingly, the Attachment-Aversion model (Park, Eisingerich et al. 2013) has two conceptual components: brand self-distance and brand prominence. The former refers to the perceived distance between a brand’s concept and the self-concept. The brand prominence is the memory accessibility of a brand to an individual (Fournier and Alvarez 2013, Park, Eisingerich et al. 2013). Thus, brand aversion is characterized by a high brand-prominence and large self-distance (Fournier and Alvarez 2013). However, it is argued that Attachment-Aversion theory is not complete, since it includes terms which are covered by other approaches such as “brand avoidance/distance” (Lee, Conroy et al. 2009) or “anti-brand” (Grégoire, Tripp et al. 2009, Johnson, Matear et al. 2011).

Further incongruences are based on the assumption that individuals who do not establish self-identifications towards brands, tend to have neutral relationships. Therefore, if a brand dissatisfies them, avoiding and switching would be the less costly option, instead of aversion. On the other hand, individuals who have self-expression connections with brands will face substantial losses due a brand’s failure, which might lead them to ongoing attacking strategies and anti-branding activities (Johnson, Matear et al. 2011). Additionally, it is held by some scholars that risk aversion may play an important role on consumer’s purchase decisions. When faced with uncertainty about some brand, regarding associated financial, performance or physiological risks, consumers might avoid the purchase (Curina, Francioni et al. 2019)

2.2.4. Anti- consumption

Anti-consumption asserts on a multidimensional approach, merging different forms of rejecting brands (Hogg, Banister et al. 2009). Given that anti-consumption is a phenomenon caused by non-consumers, its consequences are difficult to measure, but its reasons have been target of research (Chatzidakis and Lee 2013, Hoffmann and Lee 2016, Lee and Ahn 2016). Accordingly, anti-consumers deliberately choose to reject or reclaim the consumption due to a large number of reasons related with one’s personal values (Lee and Ahn 2016). Anti-consumption encompasses three non-exclusive phenomena: rejection, restriction and reclamation (Cambefort and Pecot 2020). The first, rejection, refers to consumer’s choice to stop consuming certain types of goods for personal reasons, including, functional, ethical or symbolic. Restriction is the reduction of consumption when rejection is not possible. Finally, reclamation is the consumers’ active expression of their ideological opposition to consumption, which might culminate into resistance, boycotts or avoidance (Cambefort and Pecot 2020). Nevertheless, anti-consumption can have specific targets, such as brands, products or practices, or general targets such as ideologies (Cambefort and Pecot 2020). Regarding drivers of anti-consumption, those can be personal or societal. Thus, concerns about the environment and consumer well-being might trigger anti-consumption and, then, provide movements that encourage avoidance of certain brands and/or goods. Moreover, since consumption patterns are related to self-concepts and self-expression (Wolter, Brach et al. 2016), both symbolic incongruences and political animosity may lead to anti-consumption (Lee and Ahn 2016, Cambefort and Pecot 2020, Lee, Motion et al., 2009b).

Additionally, macro level features have been related to anti-consumption (Hogg, Banister et al. 2009), such as concerns about excessive consumption and materialism, and their negative effects on consumers’ well-being (Hoffmann and Lee 2016). Hence, the field of green consumption has been growing, based on consumption behaviors motivated by environmental sustainability (Lee and Ahn 2016, Cambefort and Pecot 2020). Similarly, voluntary simplicity can trigger anti-consumption, through the assumption that the overall reduction of consumption brings a simpler lifestyle (Iyer and Muncy 2009, Cambefort and Pecot 2020).

2.2.5. Brand Boycotting

Brand boycotting might be an anti-consumption manifestation. Indeed, Friedman (1985) defined boycott as “an attempt by one or more parties to achieve some objectives by urging individual consumers to refrain from making selected purchase in marketplace” (Rim, Lee et al. 2020). To Boycott is a kind of negativity that involves communal or group dimensions and a negative WOM spreading against companies’ policies or behaviors, and are manifested by anti-brand movements and activism, with the clear intention to degrade a brand’s image and reputation (Dessart, Veloutsou et al. 2020, Rim, Lee et al. 2020). These movements have been frequently linked to corporate social responsibility (CSR) and to the increasing awareness of consumers about social, political and environmental concerns (Makarem and Jae 2016, Rim, Lee et al. 2020). CSR refers to preferred business actions that benefit both society and companies. Therefore, most of the boycotting actions are connected to a perceived companies’ threat to a party’s well-being. Thus, social, political and ethical causes are the most common source of boycott motivations, if companies’ values mismatch consumers’ beliefs (Shetty, Venkataramaiah et al. 2019). Nowadays, social media has a huge power as an information catalyst and great influence on awareness about social and environmental issues. This enables consumers to have a chance to threaten a brand’s integrity, if a company’s is perceived as transgressive, which means that it violated its relationship with consumers and breaks some important norms (Rim, Lee et al. 2020, Yuksel, Thai et al. 2020). Social media is, then, a vehicle to spread and persuade consumers to engage in protests and petitions against those brands (Yuksel, Thai et al. 2020).

As stated above, boycotting is a form of anti-consumption since the it implies abstention and rejection of certain goods (Lee, Motion et al., 2009b), and is also linked to the consumer resistance concept (Hoffmann 2011). However, boycotts might not be irredeemable. If the company has met some specific conditions, those anti-brand activists can become consumers again (Yuksel, Thai et al. 2020)

2.3. Anti-brand Communities

Anti-brand communities are groups formed by people who nourish negative feeling toward a brand and join together to voice their opposition to the brand (Dessart, Veloutsou et al. 2020). Previous research on communities defines them as a group of individuals and their established relationships. The basis of these relationships is a specific element they have in common and the creation of meaning (McAlexander, Schouten et al. 2002). Formerly, brand communities’ members met physically in a geographic space. Although communities can still exist both online and offline, the advent of the Internet overcame physical boundaries, allowing people from all over the globe to belong to virtual brand communities (Hollenbeck and Zinkhan 2006). Thus, an online brand community is a “specialized, non-geographically bound community, based on a set of social relations among admires of a brand” (Muniz and O'guinn 2001). Consequently, the Internet features became also an attractive tool for those who want to vent their anger against companies, especially because it allows them to reach a larger audience and frequently target top global brands (Dessart, Veloutsou et al. 2020), corroborating the “Negative Double Jeopardy” theory proposed by Kucuk (2008). The consumer’s motivations to engage in anti-brand communities are similar to the reasons to belong to other kind of communities, which have been a target of analysis from several scholars. Indeed, in both situations, information seeking and sharing about products or services (Goldsmith and Horowitz 2006), social value – friendship, emotional support, social enhancement, self-esteem, social status - (Sicilia and Palazón 2008) or just to interact with others (Dholakia, Bagozzi et al. 2004), are pointed as main reasons to join these groups (Dessart, Veloutsou et al. 2020). Commonly, communities are defined by three key markers: consciousness of kind, shared rituals and traditions, and moral responsibility (Muniz and O'guinn 2001, Brogi 2014).

“Consciousness of kind” describes an intrinsic connection, and a collective sense of difference from others not in the community (Muniz and O'guinn 2001, McAlexander, Schouten et al. 2002, Dholakia, Bagozzi et al. 2004, Sicilia and Palazón 2008, Brogi 2014). Furthermore, this highlights the emerging relationships between community members, which seem to be stronger than the consumer-brand relationship (Sicilia and Palazón 2008, Brogi 2014). Secondly, members have “shared rituals and traditions”, which define the meaning of the community. These include common values, norms, symbols, and behaviors, which are diffused inside and outside the community (Casaló, Flavián et al. 2008, Brogi 2014). Lastly, “moral responsibility” is concerned with a feeling of commitment to others, enhancing social involvement (Capece and Costa 2013). Furthermore, consumers who belong to brand communities become value co-creators (Pongsakornrungsilp and Schroeder 2011), which means that companies are no longer the only creators of brand meaning (Özbölük and Dursun 2017). Indeed, the Internet’s non- hierarchical structure and its low costs as an information diffusor channel, allows consumers to reach a powerful role in markets, and also a “speech equality” between consumers and brands (Hollenbeck and Zinkhan 2010, Kucuk 2010). Hence, this is particularly threatening for companies whom are a target of anti-brand activism because opposition has a much stronger effect than support. The consequences of these activities may include consumer revenge, brand sabotage and subsequently affect a brand’s reputation and legitimacy and can harm brand strength (Dessart, Morgan-Thomas et al. 2016, Dessart, Veloutsou et al. 2020).

Dessart et al. (2020) wondered about how negative consumer-brand relationships transpose into collective anti-brand actions. Their findings suggest that the engagement in anti-brand communities highly depends on individual relationships with the brand, which lead these individuals to seek other consumers in the same situation. This culminates in joining anti-brand groups and feeling a commitment with other members, as well as social approval. Often, members are encouraged to recommend community to non-members, then contributing to its growth (Dessart, Veloutsou et al. 2020) Clearly, the advent of the Internet and social media networks influenced the way people share information and build relationships (Rim, Lee et al. 2020), as well as empowering consumers’ role in markets (Dessart, Veloutsou et al. 2020). Indeed, anti-brand communities provide an environment where consumers create a resistance to imposed meanings or values prescribed by a brand

and voice their opposition, playing a social activist role. Members express their opposition by exposing marketplace inequities and promoting a sense of collective identity, where simplicity and justice may prevail (Hollenbeck and Zinkhan 2006). This approach is in accordance with brand hate basis, since an anti-brand community assumes a shared brand displeasure or hate (Dessart, Morgan-Thomas et al. 2016, Zarantonello, Romani et al. 2016, Lee, Motion et al., 2009b) and a common sense of unfairness (Hollenbeck and Zinkhan 2010). Usually, these consumers’ concerns are related with environmental or social responsibility (Romani, Grappi et al. 2015) and topics such as “exploration” or “unethical” practices are the target of protest (Hollenbeck and Zinkhan 2006). It is important to note that anti-brand websites are different from complaint forums. The later refer to sites where consumers post comments about a transaction with a company and, consequently, can provide useful information for other users and to the organization (Godes, Mayzlin et al. 2005, Krishnamurthy and Kucuk 2009). Companies that allow users to publish reviews might be aware that they cannot control the generated WOM. However, it provides efficiency and reduction of uncertainty for costumers (Chevalier and Mayzlin 2006, Krishnamurthy and Kucuk 2009).

2.4. Social media communities

Due the ubiquitousness of social media (SM) on contemporary society and its transformation into a commercial channel, these platforms became an interesting field of study in marketing literature (Lin, Fan et al. 2014). The revolution of social media tools brought a widespread set of opportunities and challenges for companies. Indeed, social media networks are shifting the core of a brand’s identity creation from companies to consumers. In contrast to traditional brand-to-consumer communication channels, SM is enabling consumers to interact with each other, sharing their experiences and perceptions and, consequently, empowering them in the process of creating new brand meanings (Pentina, Guilloux et al. 2018, Lund, Scarles et al. 2019). This interaction occurs in social networks, blogs and communities, through comments, likes, posts and reposts about their consumption experiences (Kucuk 2008, Popp, Germelmann et al. 2016, Melancon and Dalakas 2018, Othman, Azmi et al. 2019).

Hence, the effectiveness of SM as a bidirectional communication channel is evident, since brands are able to understand consumers’ insights on a wider range, enabling them to quicker align their offers to consumer’s preferences (Pentina, Guilloux et al. 2018). Nevertheless, the ability of SM as an electronic-WOM (e-WOM) generator can be an opportunity as consumers currently have the power to launch trends and turn them viral, but also a threat for brands given the quick widespread without companies’ control (Grégoire, Salle et al. 2015, Othman, Azmi et al. 2019). Several scholars have studied about costumer engagement with brands, and more recently, social media engagement. Costumer engagement has been defined through different approaches, being a broad concept that includes cognitive, psychological and motivational dimensions (Leventhal, Hollebeek et al. 2014, Dessart, Morgan-Thomas et al. 2016, Pentina, Guilloux et al. 2018). In brief, literature has shown that engaged consumers are emotionally connected to brands and, therefore, tend to include or exclude them from their self-concepts. Additionally, consumers have behavioral manifestations towards brands, beyond the purchase, including being WOM creators, writing reviews, commenting, posting and blogging. All of these activities represent a consumer’s content co-creation and frequent interaction, becoming important actors on brand’s image and meanings. (Leventhal, Hollebeek et al. 2014, Othman, Azmi et al. 2019). Furthermore, a wider interpretation of engagement refers to manifested behaviors of individuals who interact with brands without necessarily purchasing them (Liu, Shin et al. 2019). This interpretation has been given more attention in literature due the advent of SM platforms and their power as an engagement vehicle, since costumers are able to show a broader range of company-related behaviors (Liu, Shin et al. 2019). Thus, SM engagement includes three dimensions, which cover from lower to higher levels of consumer engagement, as following: consumption, contribution and creation (Muntinga, Moorman et al. 2011, Pentina, Guilloux et al. 2018). Social media consumption might include observing brand-related media, by following the brand on social network sites, reading posts, watching pictures and videos or other digital content related with that brand. Contribution level comprises comments and “likes” on pictures, videos, graphs, posts, as well as sharing this type of content. Finally, creation of brand-related media could be extended from writing reviews about the brand to posting pictures, videos and initiating textual posts about it (Schivinski, Christodoulides et al. 2016).

Nevertheless, engagement is a valanced concept (Dessart, Veloutsou et al. 2015). In fact, Higgens and Scholer (2009) mentioned that higher engagement, as a state of involvement, can also be manifested as a consumer’s focal negatively (Leventhal, Hollebeek et al. 2014). Indeed, anti-brand communities illustrate consumer’s high levels of brand engagement, yet expressed on a negative perspective (Leventhal, Hollebeek et al. 2014). Lund et. Al (2019) explored the concept of brand co-destruction on SM. Brand co- destruction occurs in digital space on consumer-to-consumer conversations, where negative comments about a brand are prevailing. Also, Nam et. Al (2018) stated that co- destruction might be a “vicious cycle” as shared negativity about a brand generates further negativity (Lund, Scarles et al. 2019).

2.5. Luxury consumer-brand relationships

Luxury brands have been traditionally defined as conspicuous possessions, characterized by specific symbols such as exclusivity, sophistication, prestige, superior quality and premium prices (Kapferer 1997, Rodrigues and Rodrigues 2019). In fact, traditional luxury consumption has been attached to conspicuousness and as a way for the upper classes to demonstrate their status, power and wealth, then differentiating them from the lower social classes (Rodrigues and Rodrigues 2019). Given their complexity, these brands used to be strictly controlled by the firms to ensure their exclusiveness both in distribution and communication channels (Okonkwo 2009, Pentina, Guilloux et al. 2018). However, the globalization phenomena created digital communications, culture convergence and new market segments (Okonkwo 2009), such as younger consumers and Asian markets (Ko, Costello et al. 2019), and also increased the luxury aspiration and demand from other social classes (Granot, Russell et al. 2013). This process is commonly defined among scholars as the “democratization of luxury”. Thus, the new luxury (or neo-luxury) reveals transformative luxury consumption, which is now lead by worthiness, feeling of belonging, and hedonic experiences. Luxury markets witnessed a shift from conspicuous-elitist logic to individualism-democratic logic, in which new consumers value quality, design and self-expression instead of status and ostentation (Bilge 2015, Rodrigues and Rodrigues 2019). Accordingly, neo-Luxury concept has been defined by Silverstein et al. (2005) as “products and services that posses higher levels of quality aspiration than other goods in the category but are not so expensive as to be out of reach” (Rodrigues and Rodrigues

2019). In other words, neo-luxury fills the gap between traditional luxury, which offers exclusive products at premium prices, and mass products and services. Nevertheless, neo- luxury products and services still exhibit superior quality and design and still are aspirational, however offering more affordable prices and accessibility (Rodrigues and Rodrigues 2019). Shortly, the democratization of luxury can be firstly attached to the middle classes increasing demand for these goods due self-expression motives, hedonic experiences or superior quality perceived (Truong, McColl et al. 2009). Secondly, this transformation happens alongside with the Millennials consumption patterns and their prominence in luxury markets (Kapferer and Michaut-Denizeau 2020), which is a target of further attention. In fact, Millennials are fueling the luxury market growth, but their motivations diverge from their predecessors, since they are not searching for ostentation and wealth showing, but for self-indulge, well-being and worthiness. They are impulsive and short-time thinkers, so they buy according to online and street trends and are highly influenced by their peers, showing they value upper class lifestyle but at affordable prices (Rodrigues and Rodrigues 2019). Also, recent studies define new generations as tech savvy, as well as promoters of sharing, collaborative or free economy. Millennials have been defined as more idealistic than materialistic, which makes them more enthusiastic about experiences rather than possessions (Kapferer and Michaut-Denizeau 2020). In this context, over the last years traditional luxury brands faced the need to reorganize their marketing strategies to reach these new segments, while new luxury brands such as Michael Kors, Ralph Lauren and Calvin Klein, were gaining ground. However, true luxury brands such as Gucci, Louis Vuitton, Hermès, Prada, Chanel, among others, are preserving their brand image and heritage and therefore, are still desirable and unaffordable for lower classes. In fact, these brands are still being exclusive in their distribution channels, and consumers are not able to find them in outlets, neither buy products on sale (Truong, McColl et al. 2009, Rodrigues and Rodrigues 2019). Recently, they had to deal with digital challenges, since there is an incongruity between luxury scope of exclusiveness and its accessibility on social media channels (Pentina, Guilloux et al. 2018). Thus, social media luxury branding strategies have to be carefully planned to engage with all potential costumers, but highlighting aspirational characteristics rather than accessibility, while preserving traditional brand values of prestige and heritage.

Consumer’s demand for luxury brands, both traditional or neo-luxury are characterized by some specific dimensions, which comprise physical needs and emotional needs. Indeed, luxury purchase intentions are highly related to emotional values (Bryson, Atwal et al. 2013). Table 2 summarizes the dimensions on consumer’s luxury perceptions and value.

Table 2: Determinants of consumers' luxury value perceptions Implicit values Description dimensions Trend to associate higher prices to higher product quality; this stereotype might make some products and services more desirable Price Value as they indicate prestige. Nevertheless, this dimension might not be determinant on purchase intentions, if other implicit values are alongside. Purchase motivations are related to functional values, since products are intended to satisf consumer needs. Usability is Usability Value concerned about both consumers’ needs and to product’s proprieties, which are expected to have superior quality and aesthetic. Luxury consumption motivations might rely on superior quality Quality Value and performance reflected on the brand name. Thus, superior reassurance and value are perceived. The assumption of exclusivity, prestige and rareness associated to Uniqueness luxury brands might lead purchase decisions. Also, uniqueness Value concept is attached to personal wishes of differentiation, since those luxury brands are not affordable or owned by everybody. The matching between self-image and brand’s image drives Self-Identity consumption, insofar that individuals may use luxury brands to Value integrate symbolic meanings on their own identity establishment. In addition to tangible benefits (functional utility) luxury products carry emotional values, such as sensory pleasure, aesthetic beauty Hedonic Value and excitement. Thus, purchase motivations might be related to personal fulfillment. Some individuals consider that luxury possessions play a central Materialistic role on their lives as long as those tend to be a sign of wealth and Value status and, therefore, a way to communicate their position to others. Conspicuous products are often more consumed in public than in Conspicuousness private, which suggests that luxury brands are important for Value consumers’ seeking integration in references group, as well as social status representations.

Source: adapted from: (Wiedmann, Hennigs et al. 2009)

2.5.1. Consumer negativity towards luxury brands

As mentioned earlier, and more specifically in 2.2.2.1, there are some determinants on the formation of negative emotions towards brands. Although those are transversal for all sectors and mass brands, it appears to have particular relevance in the luxury sector (Bryson, Atwal et al. 2013). Since luxury purchases are, among other dimensions, related to hedonic values, the emotional level of attachment with those brands tends to be higher than on other sectors (Wiedmann, Hennigs et al. 2009, Bryson, Atwal et al. 2013). Consumers seek pleasurable experiences, as well as they reach arousing feelings and fulfilment sensations (Wiedmann, Hennigs et al. 2009). Even though there still is a big lack of information regarding negativity towards luxury brands, some authors have already researched about prior luxury brand’s values and promises regarding quality and experiences, and current luxury markets. Indeed, several luxury brands are now manufacturing their products in other countries, such as China, which allows them to lower production costs and maximize retail prices. Also, the mass production of these supposed exclusive goods, leads consumers to loose the perception of implicit values of uniqueness and scarcity. Furthermore, this increase of production, almost comparable to the fast fashion industry, cause warnings from sustainability advocates. Thus, those consumers are now focused on questioning about animal care and species preservation, the origin of raw materials and working conditions in factories (Kapferer and Michaut-Denizeau 2017). Historically luxury was associated to rare and timeless products, made by hand and conveying superior quality. However nowadays these brands are producing according to fashion waves and therefore achieving rapid obsolesce (Kapferer and Michaut-Denizeau 2017). Though, recent studies found controversy between sustainability and luxury purchases. Despite younger generations care about the environment, animal care and safety, they might not always consider these issues when purchasing luxury brands (Kapferer and Michaut- Denizeau 2020). According to Voyer and Beckam (2014), a luxury bag could be perceived as less luxurious if it is described as sustainable (i.e. made with recycled materials). Thus, there is a remaining paradox. On one hand, luxury is attached to excess and opposite to frugal lifestyle that aims to preserve limited resources on earth. On the other hand, luxury items are supposed to last forever given their superior quality, exclusiveness and beauty. This should

be, implicitly, opposite to obsolesce and waste, and therefore is contradictory to unsustainability (Kapferer and Michaut-Denizeau 2020). Kapferer and Michaut-Denizeau (2020) found out that since luxury purchases are highly attached to hedonic values, consumers engage in great levels of pleasure and personal fulfillment, forgeting the world’s concerns for a while. Nowthstanding, their findings also proved that not all millennials behave in the same way. Indeed, younger individuals are more aware of world’s urge to preserve scare resources, as well as ethical concerns. Finally, they found that despite some millennials do not take sustaibility into account on their luxury purchase intentions, that does not prevent them to negatively react if they perceive a company’s misbehavior, showing disappointment and anger (Kapferer and Michaut-Denizeau 2020). Furthermore, other studies reveald that, on the overall consumption, younger individuals have higher expectations from brands that work for society’s wellfare and promotes social responsibility, rather than profit oriented ones. Thus, and given their increasing power as consumers and WOM generators on social media, they do not hesitate in boycotting brands that stand for causes that upset them (Japutra and Molinillo 2019).

3. Methodology

This chapter provides information about the conducted qualitative research in this study and its relevance for the understanding of the dynamics of consumer-generated content in the anti-brand communities. Then, the context of research is defined and explained. Further, the object of study and criteria for data selection are clarified. Finally, the data collection from two studies is shown and its respective processes of coding and analysis.

3.1. A Netnographic Approach

Netnography is a qualitative research method that emerged from the digital adaptation of conventional ethnographic techniques, used to understand behaviors and cultures of communities (Parrott, Danbury et al. 2015). For centuries, ethnography techniques have been used for systematic studies of people and cultures, in order to understand society and cultural phenomena. Due to the advent of the Internet and, consequently, new forms of interaction between human beings, ethnography was able to evolved into netnography (Heinonen and Medberg 2018). Therefore, netnography is a qualitative research technique that is adopted to create a in- depth and rich narrative through grounded interpretations of consumer interactions, thus providing a representation of online social connections (Kozinets 2002, Waqas, Hamzah et al. 2020). Hence, it allows to understand human experience, embedded in historical trajectories and established networks (Kozinets 2015). Accordingly, all the user-generated content among several online platforms, such as social media, forums, blogs, open communities and websites, are public and allow researchers to gather a large amount of useful insights (Parrott, Danbury et al. 2015, Heinonen and Medberg 2018). Netnography, compared to other research methods, offers several benefits. Firstly, it provides researchers a realistic and not fabricated scenario where spontaneous behaviors and conversations happen. Thus, researchers are able to collect consumer’s insights through observational (or not) methodology in a naturalistic and unobtrusive way. Secondly, it is less costly and simpler than other techniques such as interviews and focus groups, which can also be unavoidably intrusive and preclude an observation of spontaneous behaviors by the

interviewee (Kozinets 2002). Nevertheless, netnography is compatible with these methods (interviews, surveys and focus groups) as complements. Thirdly, the collecting data process is also innovative, given that researchers have access to words, images, videos, sound files, among other digital artifacts (Kozinets 2002, Heinonen and Medberg 2018). However, in a netnography approach, researchers should be aware of ethical concerns as well as the implicit need for realistic data interpretation. On one hand, it should be ensured that selected communities are public and open to everyone, however, even in public online spaces, participants’ identities must be conserved, unless allowed by them (Parrott, Danbury et al. 2015, Heinonen and Medberg 2018). On the other hand, researcher’s interpretative skills are essential to achieve trustworthy interpretation, since the observatory method implies understanding and decoding data from unknown individuals and to recognize the quality and authenticity of that information (Kozinets 2002, Heinonen and Medberg 2018). At same time, other limitations have been given attention among scholars. The main limitations concern its narrow focus on online communities and difficulty to generalize findings to customer groups outside of that sample (Kozinets 2002). Also, there is a difficulty on establishing demographic conclusions, such as age, ethnicity or even gender, since most of the participants choose anonymous identities as ways to reach freedom and spontaneous connection and sharing needs (Kozinets 2015). Since this study aims to analyze consumer’s behaviors and their brand’s perceptions through online brand communities, the nethnographic approach seems the most adequate. Even though the validity of virtual interactions can be questioned, Kozinets (1998, p. 366) highlights that these groups have “real existence” for their participants, who manifest real tastes, desires and needs, perhaps influencing each others’ consumption behaviors (Kozinets 2002). Consequently, it can be argued that “costumers bring their offline identities, values, meanings and other characteristics online”, thus substantiating the valuable contribution of nethnographic analysis for marketing research (Heinonen and Medberg 2018). Therefore, a symbolic netnography is going to be performed in this study. This kind of netnography relies on the search and analysis of online interactions between specific groups of people and translate that into theory about consumers’ reality (Kozinets 2015). Symbolic netnography tends to be local (directed to a specific field) and to complement or improve existing information, by building a portrait of useful insights about consumers’ practices, meanings and values (Kozinets 2015b).

Regarding data collection, the netnographic process comprises two main important elements, (1) the archival data, in which the researcher directly copies from online communications between community members, and (2) reflective data, which depends of the researcher’s interpretations of retrieved interactions and, therefore inscribed according to the observation of community members and their interactions and meanings (Kozinets 2002). Finally, using this netnographic approach and based on the literature revised, the empirical study in this investigation will be conducted based on the following research questions:

RQ1: What are the antecedents of consumer negativity in the context of fashion luxury brands in online communities? RQ2: How consumers express different types of negativity in the context of fashion luxury in online communities?

3.2. Context of research

This study aims to analyze the negative spread of content among online networks in the fashion luxury sector. Several research studies suggest that generational cohort is an effective way to segment markets, since generational groups experience similar social, cultural and economic events (Kim 2019). Thus, given the relevance of younger generations – Millennianls (Gen. Y) and Gen. Z – on luxury market expansion, as they are expected to represent nearly 58% of luxury consumption by 2025 (BCG 2020), these two generations are the target of the analysis.

Interbrand (2019) stated luxury sector as the top-growing sector in 2019. Also, according to Bain & Company (2019), the global luxury market grew 5% in 2018, and personal luxury goods reached a record that year. Also, the report highlights the influence of younger consumers on luxury growth. Indeed, Generations Y and Z represented, in 2018, 47% of the luxury consumers and 33% of luxury purchases. Furthermore, they are expected to contribute 130% of market growth by 2025 (Bain & Company 2019, PMX Agency 2019). Since these consumers are highly digital embracers, it is in accordance to the online luxury shopping growth (Bain & Company 2019). Furthermore, the online channel is estimated to represent half of the luxury sales and 25% of the market’s value, enabled by the virtual

facilities along the value chain (as research, order and payment). Due to the increasing investment in social media engagement strategies by luxury brands and the power of social media influencers as brand co-creators and trend launchers (Pentina, Guilloux et al. 2018), it is also expected that nearly all luxury purchases will be influenced by online interactions by 2025 (Bain & Company 2019, PMX Agency 2019).

Regarding generations, it is important to underline that they are not only defined by age or kinship, rather they are mostly defined by a set of social, economical, political and/or technological disruptions (Marcie Merriman 2015). In a chronological perspective, Millennials have been defined as individuals born between 1981 and 1996, while Gen. X comprises the individuals born after 1996 (Parker and Igielnik 2020). Millennials revolutionized markets a few years ago when they showed low levels of brand loyalty and pioneering consumption patterns, forcing the brands to redefine marketing strategies. However, a new generation emerged and challenged the markets once again. These two generations are currently the most important segments in the luxury market (Deloitte 2019) and, although Gen.Z still have low-purchase rate they are powering online market growth and showing unprecedented values and perceptions (N. Danziger 2019). These two generations had been similarly approached by brands, however they might have different consumption drivers. Millennials, who are the largest generation today (Cheng 2019) grew up on a digital globalization era, which made them tech-dependent, embracing digital solutions to simplify their lives, business and relationships (Business Insider 2020). As they are highly informed, they are pragmatic and skeptics on their purchase intentions, and additionally tending to be influenced by their peers, they seek trends and innovation (Barger, Peltier et al. 2016, Ladhari, Gonthier et al. 2019). Alongside their high spending power and sophisticated tastes, their consumption motivations are linked to self-esteem and public self-consciousness, turning them into the biggest potential luxury consumers. Nevertheless, they are socially-conscious, and embrace solidarity causes as well as environmental care (Mafini, Dhurup et al. 2014, Ladhari, Gonthier et al. 2019). On the other hand, Gen. Z individuals show a wide scope of values and consumption motivations. Firstly, they are digital natives, which differs them from Millennials (who witnessed and embraced the digital developments). By stating this, it means that they do not know a world without constant and instantly connection with their peers and with

information about diverse subjects, ranging from social and environmental, to political and economic issues. Indeed, they grew up in a boundary free world, where gender and sexuality is increasingly nondescript, racial and cultural discrimination is seeking to be eradicated, and they are educated to be aware of sustainability concerns (Marcie Merriman 2015). Given that, they are currently the most educated generation so far, as well as the most racially and ethically diverse (Parker and Igielnik 2020). Furthermore, as these individuals were born or grew up during a global economic recession and instability (Marcie Merriman 2015), perhaps that made them more economicly-conscious than Millennials (Bernstein 2015), challenging brands to create greater value for money in their offers. As a result previously mentioned, their education brought them values and desires to change the world to a better place. Indeed, they show preference for brands that show social responsibility (BCG 2020). Their increasing power due to their presence on all digital platforms and as an important segment of consumers, enables them to engage in successful activism (Hessekiel 2018) and have been impacting companies’ practices. They care about causes such as violence, racism, peace, animal care, labor conditions, climate and environment issues and use social media as a means to widespread their claim (Hessekiel 2018, Cheng 2019). On the whole, generation Z and Millennials expect brands to care about environmental and ethical issues among communities and appreciate brands’ authenticity and transparency (Deloitte 2019).

According to Bain & Company (2017) there are three key markers of new luxury consumerism among these generations: Uniqueness, Urgency, and Uneasiness. The first, uniqueness, has been explored earlier in this report and refers to purchase decisions based on the alignment between brands’ values and their beliefs and personalities. Regarding urgency, younger consumers show a faster purchase decision process, meaning they are buying based on emotional drivers. Lastly, uneasiness refers to the peers influence on purchase decisions, which takes place mostly in digital space (D’Arpizio and Levato 2017). Given the relevance of digital networks on these generations’ daily life, luxury brands saw the urge to integrate social media channels in their communication strategies. However, as previously mentioned, this process is challenging, since there is an incongruity between luxury scope of exclusiveness and its accessibility on social media channels (Pentina, Guilloux et al. 2018). Thus, social media luxury branding strategies have to be carefully planned to be both spread among all potential costumers, while preserving traditional brand values of

prestige and heritage. In short, these strategies should ensure the highlighting of aspirational characteristics of luxury goods, rather than accessibility, and to reach younger consumers’ engagement (Deloitte 2019). Therefore, social media (SM) engagement concept has been gaining importance among luxury companies. Indeed, SM is the most effective channel to constantly interact with consumers, enabling companies to get insights about consumer’s preferences and also to allow them to become brand’s co-creators, forming a bilateral communication network (Pentina, Guilloux et al. 2018).

3.3. Object of the study

Since this study aims to understand negative consumer’s perceptions and behaviors toward brands on a global and non-geographical scale, the choice of the brands under analysis was made according to global brand rankings. To assure that analyzed brands are likely to be targets of anti-brand communities, the “Negative Double Jeopardy” (NDJ) concept, proposed by Kucuk (2008), was used. The NDJ enhances the disadvantages that strong brands have on weaker ones, since the former are more attractive to negative attention and attitudes from consumers. This phenomena is empowered mainly through digital channels where communication is non-hierarchical and there is speech equality (Kucuk 2010, Rogers, Daunt et al. 2017). The “NDJ” conceptualization relies on two dimensions, which enables researchers to identify which brands are stronger and, therefore, more likely to be a target of anti-brand movements on the Internet. These dimensions are “Brand Rank”, which refers to brand’s placement in a recognized Rank, and “Brand Consistency” which indicates for how long that brand has been ranked in the list in the last five years (Kucuk 2008).

Accordingly, InterBrand’s Best Global Brands Ranking will be used to find out the most valuable brands in the fashion luxury industry and then, an adaptation to the evaluation proposed by Kucuk (2008) will be performed. Thus, if the brand is ranked in the first 50 Best Global Brands, it is considered as “High Brand Rank”, while the brands placed from 51 to 100 on the list are “Low Brand Rank”. Concerning the second dimension, “High Brand Consistency” it is characterized by more than three years in the rank, and “Low Brand Consistency” if not (Kucuk 2008).

In agreement with InterBrand’s Ranking, among the 100 most valuable brands in the world, there are 9 luxury brands (annex I). The brand value has been estimated by Interbrand, based on the brand’s financial or service performance, its role in consumer’s purchase decisions, and its competitive strength compared to other brands within luxury sector (Business Insider 2020). Then, given the evidence of increasing the power of social media in consumer’s behaviors (Pentina, Guilloux et al. 2018), information regarding luxury brands on social media from PMX Agency (2019), Rival IQ (2019) and Luxe Digital (2019) was analyzed. Thus, the researcher combined the information provided in the “Best Global Brands” (Interbrand, 2019) , with a ranking of brand popularity, measured by the Luxe Digital (2019), as specified in Annex II.

To narrow the study object, and because this investigation also has a component of generational comparison, the need to find out each generation’s favorite luxury brands emerged. Several studies have been focusing on Millennial’s most desired brands, based on online audiences (Hitewise 2017b, YPulse 2018, Luxury Society 2019). In fact, Louis Vuitton and Gucci appears to be the most popular brands on the Internet (Luxe Digital 2019, Luxury Society 2019). Furthermore, Hitewise’s study shows the comparison between young and old Millennials regarding to luxury website visits, as labeled below in figure 1.

Figure 1: Website Visits Comparing Luxury Millennials to Over 35s

Source: (Hitewise 2017b)

Accordingly, after matching this information with previous information in this report, Gucci and Louis Vuitton and came out as the favorite brands for these generations (YPulse 2018).

However, among the true luxury brands, Louis Vuitton has a greater share (9.25%), as specified in Annex V, making it the chosen brand for this study.

To contrast consumer’s behavior towards the true luxury brands and the new-luxury brands a research about the later was done. Rodrigues and Rodrigues (2019) found out that, among a sample of young consumers (age 18-25) Michael Kors, Calvin Klein and Ralph Lauren were classified as the new-luxury brands in the fashion category. However, Michael Kors had the highest score among all categories, therefore proofing that this brand is chosen by Millennials as the main neo-luxury brand (Rodrigues and Rodrigues 2019). In addition, Delloite’s 2019 report regarding Global Powers of Luxury Goods 2019 shows Michael Kors company ranked in the 17th position (Deloitte 2019). In a digital overview, PMX2 report points Michael Kors as the online market share-leading brand in 2019 (16.1%), followed by Ralph Lauren and Louis Vuitton. Regarding top brand searches, Michael Kors ranks third, while Louis Vuitton ranks first. Finally, on Social Media platforms, Michael Kors belongs to the leading 10 brands, ranked as 7th with 37M followers among Instagram, Facebook and Twitter (PMX Agency 2019). Also, Hitwise (2017) places Michal Kors as heading the fashion luxury website regarding visit share (Annex VI) and also points out that the brand reaches older Millennials (age 25-34) the most (Hitewise 2017).

3.4. Data Selection

According to Kozinets (2002), the first step in conducting netnography is to identify the specific marketing research questions and then to find suitable online platforms for the investigation. Furthermore, during the choice of online communities, the researcher must be aware of the amount of online user-generated content and be able to understand which are the trustful and relevant sources of information. Kozinets (2002, 2015) offers a set of guidelines to help researchers on this criteria selection. Firstly, preferred communities should have a group or topic related to the research question; secondly, these communities must show substantial number of members, posts and frequent activity; and thirdly, should provide a rich body of relevant data, which means detailed posts that express consumers’

2 Report’s data reflects only an analysis of US market

feelings, experiences and perceptions towards the analyzed brand (Kozinets 2002, Kozinets 2015). Furthermore, given the context of this study, only spontaneous brand communities were selected, meaning that were created by consumers and the content is only consumer- generated, without any influence from luxury brands (Brogi, Calabrese et al. 2013). This criteria is essential for researchers to understand real consumer’s perceptions because, on one hand they can ensure anonymity if they want to, giving them a chance to expose their feelings and experiences in a place they feel understood and fearless. On the other hand, companies do not have control on posts and conversations, turning these sites richer regarding spontaneity. Nevertheless, researchers must have appropriate skills to ensure the authenticity of the provided data (Kozinets 2002, Kozinets 2015).

3.4.1. Criteria for Data Selection

To select relevant anti-brand communities, the leading online search engine (Google) was used. Thus, following the methodology applied in Kucuk’s (2010) research, negative terms were written followed by or following the brand’s name. Therefore, searches included words such as “anti”, “hate”, “boycott”, “fuck”, “blows” and “shit” (Kucuk 2010), “Louis Vuitton” and “Michael Kors”. However, most of the founded forums and blogs were focused on conversations about luxury brands, containing both positive and negative posts, for example “The Purse forum” or “The fashion Spot”. This type of communities and similar ones, are not anti-brand communities so those are not relevant for this study. Therefore, a complaint platform – Pissed Consumer - was found and, after a period of investigation, showed to be suitable for the intended analysis about inputs and outputs of negative consumer-brand relationships.

On the other hand, to reach younger consumer’s opinions about the selected brands, the social media analysis is crucial. As stated above in this report, among several Internet platforms, SM networks are the ones account that for more consumer engagement nowadays (Shirdastian, Laroche et al. 2019). Together with with Facebook and Instagram, Twitter is one of the most popular social media platforms, with an average of 330 million monthly active users (Statista 2020d), wherein 66% are Millennials and Gen.Z (Statista, 2020). The relevance of Twitter as content analysis for this study relies on its concept of microblogging, where users are able to share publicly all kinds of information, such as their feelings,

emotions, experiences, desires and so on, but with a limited number of characters, making it simpler for researchers to obtain useful insights about these consumers (Shirdastian, Laroche et al. 2019). Also, Twitter is one of the grater information disseminators on the Internet due to the “Retweeting” functionality, which allows users to share other users’ messages (Tweets), quickly creating electronic WOM (Kim, Sung et al. 2014). Below, table 3 summarizes information about the two platforms studied.

Table 3: Information regarding platforms integrating the study's object Louis Michael Platform Description About Vuitton (LV) Kors (MK) - 3.5K monthly visitors Public review platform

for several brands. 182 1034 - 78K Gives consumers’ the Reviews Reviews Pissed companies opportunity to share Consumer reviewed their experiences and 100K Page 120K Page

opinions regarding views views - 1.7M brands. consumer reviews Microblogging platform that allows users to get updates about everything that is happening among all

different fields of daily Twitter 330M monthly NA3 NA life. Users can be visitors connected globally through posting, sharing and seeing all kind of contents such as text, images, videos and links. Source: Own Elaboration (Statistics retrieved from respective platforms)

3.5. Data Collection

After selecting the relevant anti-brand community – Pissed Consumer - and social media platform – Twitter -, the collecting data process began. The collecting data process was similar for both platforms, relying on negative experiences or emotions towards the two brands selected and only posts written in English were read. However, given the differences in the platforms scopes, a different criterion was used.

STUDY 1

Conducting the Twitter analysis enabled to increase the pertinence of this investigation, especially considering the amount of younger users in this microblogging social network. Due to the overwhelming amount of user generated content and the purpose of being a just- in-time posting platform, it was relevant to analyze posts in a period of 26 months – from May 1st, 2018 to June 30th, 2020. Regarding data collection, an advanced search on Twitter was conducted, and filtered by pertinent words for this study, and also time filters, as displayed in figure 2. Although privacy policies do not enable the researcher to outline an age profile regarding the posts under analysis, Statista (2020) showed that Twitter users are predominantly young individuals, aged 18-34, as stated in annex VII.

Figure 2: Conducted advanced search on Twitter

A large amount of generated content was found and analyzed based on the researcher’s visual and context interpretative skills, then only Tweets that integrate rich and useful information for the investigation’s purpose were extracted manually, using NCapture. Afterwards, extracted information started to be analyzed and grouped in the NVivo software. Initially, some nodes were created in NVivo. Each node is a theme or topic related to the research questions. In this case the researcher created those nodes based on previous theory about antecedents of negative consumer-brand relationships, such as proposed by Wu, Qin et al. 2018 , Malär, Krohmer et al. 2011, Lee, Conroy et al. (2009), Romani, Grappi et al. (2013), Park, Eisingerich et al. (2013), Lee and Ahn (2016), Bryson, Atwal et al. (2013) and Makarem and Jae (2016). Thus a theoretical coding procedure was used, since it reflected concepts with potential explanatory value for the research purposes (Salinger, Plonka et al. 2008). Given that, Tweets that include textual and non-textual concepts related to each specific theme were captured and coded into their respective node. The process started with the researcher’s inductive reasoning, whereby visual and interpretative skills were essential for dissecting data into small parts and grouping them according to similarities and differences. This method is described as open coding, in which data is translated into conceptual codes (Krepapa and Regkoukou , Bringer, Johnston et al. 2006, Parrott, Danbury et al. 2015). Then, an axial coding was applied to explore the relationships between concepts and categories previously developed on open coding (Kaiser and Presmeg, 2019 p.96). Table 4 illustrates the details of axial coding schemes.

Table 4: Axial coding scheme

Category Sub - categories Content expressing keywords

“Terrible”, “unhelpful”, “rude”, “unempathetic”, “poor”, “disappointed”, Costumer Service “elitist”, “trash”, “racist”, “judgmental”, Brand “disgusting”, “not recommend” Performance “Defective”, “disappointed”, “poor Quality of products quality”, “terrible”, “not worth”, “horrible”, “awful”,

“Animal cruelty”, “horrifying”, “slaughter”, “shame”, “disgust”, “abuse”, “torture”, Brand’s Values Social responsibility “boycott”, “violence”, “horror” “capitalism”, “fascist”, “burn”, “racist”, “arrested”, “heartless”, “sick” “Boycott”, “Trump”, “exploited labor”, Values and beliefs Consumer- “shame”, “racist”, “dehumanize”, brand “Ugly”, “expensive”, “tacky”, “trashy”, identification Non consumers “sick”, “hate”, “elitist”, “mainstream”, “terrible” Source: Own Elaboration.

The performed netnographic procedure was dedicated in finding pertinent posts (Tweets) describing negative feelings, perceptions and experiences towards these two brands. Therefore, after the coding process, the researcher was able to perform a deep analysis of a total of 529 captured posts. To understand what generates those negative relationships it is necessary to count the number of posts in each category and sub-category. Table 5 shows the distribution of frequencies for each brand and their respective triggers.

Table 5: Twitter content's analysis frequency Louis Michael Vuitton Kors

Brand Performance 95

 Costumer service 45 21 66  Quality 16 13 29

Brand’s Values 205  Corporate social responsibility o Animal Care 81 10 91 o Social issues 33 3 36

o Human rights 2 53 55 o Brand authenticity 2 19 21 o Environmental issues 2 - 2

Consumer-brand identification 229  Consumer’s values and 85 26 111 beliefs  Consumer-brand identity 69 49 118 mismatch

Total 335 194

Source: Own Elaboration

STUDY 2

Regarding the Pissed Consumer, since it is a complaint forum, almost all the posts refer to negative concerns. Given that, in a 5 years period of content analysis (from 2015 to 2020), a total of 1129 posts were analyzed (LV = 150; MK=979). Notwithstanding, posts that exceeded the boundaries of this investigation’s scope were ignored, such as the following: posts concerning selling/buying products; unreasonable or untrustworthy posts; posts that do not show negative perceptions or experiences. The categories under analysis were defined as the posts were read and the as researcher had insights about the main negative concerns regarding these brands. The process is similar to open coding, since data is converted into concepts, which helps to define the main themes, and then the sub-categories for each one. Then, the count of posts was performed manually in Microsoft word for each classification as stated on table 6. Nevertheless, because each comment can contain multiple implicit motivations, in some cases posts were accounted for in more than one category.

Table 6: Analysis of content's frequency on "Pissed Consumer" forum Category Sub categories Louis Michael Vuitton Kors Delivery delays; mistakes in the delivery process; missing products; Post-purchase warranty issues; repair services; product’s exchange process; post- 44 284 service order issues (eg. changing the shipping address); missing receipt or order confirmation. Costumer service in store (phone Racial, age or social discrimination; and email poor service in store; employees’ 56 188 included when bad conduct; waiting times. applicable) Online orders and Tracking problems; charging 4 errors; locked accounts; lack of NA 59 accounts updating stocks. Return or refund Lack of information about companies’ policies; delays in the 22 121 policy refund process. Quality of Product lifetime; damaged 51 282 materials products.

Total number of 150 979 posts read

Source: Own elaboration

Due to the large difference in the number of complaints for either brand, it is important to understand the weight of each determinant on consumers’ negative experiences for each brand. Therefore, a relative analysis was performed, as shown below in graphs 1 and 2.

4 NA – Not applicable, since on Twitter it is not the Louis Vuitton or Michael Kors official page that are under analysis, but posts that mention to pejorative words related to the brands. Twitter does not have any tool that allows researchers to count the number of posts related to a brand.

Graph 1: Weight of each category on the total Louis Vuitton´s posts

Louis Vuitton

Post-purchase Quality of service products 25% 30%

Costumer Return or service in store refund policy /phone / email 13% 32%

Graph 2: Weight of each category on the Michael Kors' total posts

Michael Kors

Quality of Post-purchase products service 30% 31%

Return or refund policy 13% Costumer Online orders service in store and accounts /phone /email 6% 20%

4. Results and Discussion

In this section the results of the two netnographic studies performed will be discussed, in order to understand drivers and outcomes of negative consumer-brand relationships in the luxury sector. The analysis of results will be processed by category and subcategory. This means that, according to the literature reviewed and coding procedures (performed in chapter 3), three main categories were founded as determinants of consumer’s negativity towards luxury brands, as following: (1) Brand Performance, (2) Corporate Social (ir)responsibility, and (3) Consumer-brand (dis)identification. Thus, evidence of consumer’s perceptions retrieved from messages from both platforms will be presented and contextualized with theory previously presented. Alongside the antecedents, the resulting outcomes of negativity will be presented. Therefore, it will be possible to answer and relate the two research questions: RQ1: What are the antecedents of consumer negativity in the context of fashion luxury brands in online communities? RQ2: How consumers express different types of negativity in the context of fashion luxury in online communities?

Negativity antecedents and its subsequent expressions

Brand Performance

A significant part of analyzed content is related to brand’s performance, especially in study 2. Indeed, the consumer-brand relationship is a broad concept that includes emotional, behavioral and intellectual dimensions. Besides the implicit values in luxury items such as superior quality, design, functionalism and hedonism and conspicuousness, the brand experience plays an imperative role, so companies should ensure meaningful and transcendent services and experiences (Loureiro, Jiménez-Barreto et al. 2020). In fact, positive perceptions emerge from the brand’s ability to meet or exceed consumers’ expectations (Japutra and Molinillo 2019). Contrarily, given the higher expectations regarding luxury brands, a failure in delivering the proposed quality or service might lead to a consumer’s negativity towards it. Indeed, dissatisfaction with brand performance has been pointed as a major driver of brand hate (Hegner, Fetscherin et al. 2017).

Since PissedConsumer is a complaint forum, the greater amount of information retrieved from this site is related to band’s performance. Although Michael Kors has been more scrutinized than Louis Vuitton in this platform, a relative analysis allows the researcher to understand that both companies are a target of negative testimonials due to bad quality of products, negative experiences in store and poor post-purchase customer service. Also, some Twitter users stated their disappointment among these topics. On one hand, it is possible to realize that on PissedConsumer, the NDJ concept (Kucuk 2008) is unverified, since the amount of negative comments towards Michael Kors greatly exceeds Louis Vuitton’s ones. On the other hand, it was verified that consumers show greater disappointment regarding value for money in Louis Vuitton’s experiences. These findings validate the theory about consumer’s expectations towards luxury brands. Indeed, Louis Vuitton is a traditional luxury brand, while Michael Kors is characterized as neo-luxury (Rodrigues and Rodrigues 2019).

Poor quality and bad costumer service are pointed as major causes of negativity towards these brands, answering to RQ1:

“(…) Over the last few days I have had the most dreadful customer service from Louis Vuitton over a broken bag as a result of their poor quality. The chap was unhelpful, unempathetic & dismissive. Shame on you LV - I expected better. #LouisVuitton “ (@AmandaPadbury1. 22nd May 2019)

“The absolute worst costumer service ever. For over a month and a half I am dealing with LV in store and online costumer service and I am disgusted of the way they handle complaints (…) The whole experience from start to finish was nothing but painful and absolutely unacceptable (...) I will never purchase anything from them again.” (PissedConsumer1216751 of Edgewater, NJ, 22nd March 2018)

Also, intentions of spreading the negative messages to other consumers are shown, which allows to understand the ways consumers express their displeasure and negativity on anti- brand communities, providing useful insights to answer RQ2:

“DO NOT BUY THEIR PRODUCTS THEY ARE JUNK!!!!! Biggest mistake I ever made! I own Burberry, Chanel and Gucci and Christian Loubitin! I have never had any issues with any of those products

only LV!!!! I am very disappointed and they lost a valuable costumer! I hope people catch on to what junk u make and smarten up! I will surely be spreading the word! I already talked my girlfriend into not wasting her money on a LV tote and instead ordering one of the new CL instead! Word will spread! Be smart ladies DO NOT WASTE YOUR MONEY ON LV!!!” (Christi B of Rockville, MD. 24th July 2018)

“I returned a 700$ package at the end of March (…) on June they replied, saying they can't locate my return. Since then, silence (...) I read many of thecomplains here, and two ideas keep repeating: 1.this company doesn't give a damn about customers. You can't contact them by phone, email, chat, nothing! 2. so many packages get 'lost'. Why does MK still EXIST? (...) Recommendation: DO NOT BUY! Bad quality and horrible customer service!” (Lily Z, 3rd July 2020)

Likewise, many consumers mention social or racial discrimination on stores’ as sources of disappointment, which enables researchers to answer to RQ1.

“I visited the LV in Manchester today and I have to say they have the rudest most snotty staff I have come across! I was in the store to exchange an item (...) but the look they give you up and down like you do not belong in that store and then the snootiness on top just topped it off for me. I have shopped in Hermes and Gucci and they look after you and welcome you whatever your wearing or look like (...)” (PissedConsumer646457 of Stockport, United Kingdom, 6th June 2015)

Also on Twitter, customers do not hesitate in publicly show their dissatisfaction regarding brands’ quality and services:

“Wore 5 times and broke. Terrible craftsmanship for my hard earned money. Not my first time having an issue with quality from this designer. Never again #crappydesign… @michaelkors” (TracyMacKell, @embracinglife65. 22nd February 2019)

“Horrible CS! Have had my return for 10 days and no credit of my $1400. Every CS rep gives me a different story and timeframe. @LouisVuitton @LouisVuitton_US” (Cindy Swearengin @yankeesgirl1117. 24th August 2018)

The analysis of this kind of content allows the researcher to validate that the failures on meeting consumer’s expectations and further failures on recovering strategies, generates

feelings of hate and consequent motivations to engage in complaints and negative WOM (Curina, Francioni et al. 2019). As shown in the above testimonials, consumers clearly stated their intention to end relationships with those companies as well as to incite others to avoid shopping their products (Romani, Grappi et al. 2013). Additionally, as the consumers read other complaints and interact with each other, their negative perceptions became stronger and their intentions to forgive the brand might decrease (Lund, Scarles et al. 2019). Additionally, the comparison with other luxury brands appears to be regular in these statements. Frequent luxury consumers are aware of their rights and have a clear notion in their minds about what they should expect from a brand with high standards. Thus, they insist in highlighting positive experiences with the brand’s competitors. Intentionally or non- intentionally, they are creating positive brand awareness to other companies due to negative experiences with those specific brands.

Furthermore, the sense of identification between consumers’ experiences and feelings within the community, generates motivations to act together against brands, given that inside the community they develop feelings of belonging (Muniz and O'guinn 2001, Brogi 2014) and strength to take actions that they might not be able to take by themselves. That is a clear intention to express their negativity towards brands (RQ2).

“I wanted to find out after reading all the reviews about Michael Kors if anyone was doing a class action lawsuit about this company not standing by their warrantee and if not can we start one.” (Shera, 13th June 2020)”

In other situations, it is possible to verify that some customers feel unsatisfied with the brand’s performance, but use strategies such as retaliation. Fetscherin (2019b) emphasizes that consumers’ retaliation aims to achieve equity, rather than a long-term commitment on hurting the brand. Indeed, these consumers are still available to give firms a second chance, and do not engage in extremist behaviors at first, such as ending relationship. Below examples validating this theory:

“(…) I am so disappointing after spending almost $3000 for all of the items. How can they not replace a new wallet having it repair three times is not acceptable?. (...) If I do not feel satisfied with your company at the end of our correspondence, I will be forced to take further action. I hope that you can redeem yourself as a

company because as of right now I would not recommend you to a friend.” (Giuseppina Dasilva, 31st January 2018) – Regarding Louis Vuitton.

“(…) Can any one in Michale Kors solve my problem? It’s been more than 8 months!!!! (Jilao T, 17th July 2020)

Corporate Social (Ir)responsibility

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) should be based on a win-win-win situation for society, business and customers (Guzmán and Davis 2017). It requires a cautious alignment between the companies’ values and culture with value creation for all the stakeholders. Therefore, it comprises several dimensions such as environmental, product related, diversity, corporate governance, employee-related and community (Yang and Basile, 2019). It has been argued that firms have the obligation to conduct their business in a way that promotes and improves welfare of the society and in the organization both in the present and ensuring a sustainable future (Guzmán and Davis 2017, Yang and Basile, 2019) Thus, organizations should honor social values, respect people and their rights and the natural environment. This includes not only business practices, but also regarding charitable, philanthropy and community involvement activities (Guzmán and Davis 2017) The CSR concern in the luxury market is controversial and there still exists a lack of information about this issue (Kapferer and Michaut-Denizeau 2020). However, it had been proven that younger consumers prefer to purchase brands that support moral causes and may stop buying them if brands behave unethically (Japutra and Molinillo 2019). Considering the sample of Study 1 regarding to Twitter users, it is perceptible that a brand’s failure on conduction appropriate CSR is the major driver for consumers’ negativity. According to posts frequency analysis, animal harming stands as the major trigger for negative feelings, followed by human rights, social issues and brand authenticity.

 Animal care

During the period of analysis, a great amount of activism against both brands was found, regarding a lack of animal care and their protection in the companies’ activities. In fact, in Study 1 animal care accounts for a great amount of posts, and it should be highlighted that retweets were not counted. Thus, the outreach of each post might be enormous. In fact, some anti-brand movements on Twitter such as posts by PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) regarding Louis Vuitton misbehaviors reached around 56K retweets.

The retrieved content shows consumer’s feelings of anger and disgust regarding companies’ conducts, which leads them to engage in boycotting actions against both brands.

Louis Vuitton has been a target of several movements against the use of crocodiles’ skin to produce luxury bags:

“Iʼm very disappointed that Louis Vuitton makes handbags and other products out of @LouisVuitton crocodiles and the worst part is watching that video of crocodiles being cut like that disgusts me. Youʼre on my top list of Boycotting your products #StopAnimalAbuse (Christian Pacheco. 21st March 2019)

This content allows understanding several aspects that were already discussed among researchers. Firstly, it is possible to identify some antecedents of brand hate. Hatred feelings arise not only from perceived unacceptable CSR conducts, but also due to identity disharmony: “This is why I try to use only cruelty free products. Itʼs one (evil) thing to test on animals once they’re dead. Itʼs another thing to do it while their fucking alive! My stomach literally HURTS looking at this! Shame on you, Louis Vuitton! Actually, FUCK YOU, Louis Vuitton!” (@deanime. 11th February 2020)

Individuals’ beliefs and values are strong reasons to avoid or even hate brands. It is shown that consumers who are against animal cruelty develop feelings of disgust, shame and contempt towards brands that are inconsistent to their beliefs and self-concept, and also try to distance themselves from those brands (Wu, Qin et al. 2018, Curina, Francioni et al. 2019). Furthermore, the undeniable power of SM as an information disseminator proves the possibility that hatred is triggered by the spread of negative WOM by other individuals (Romani, Grappi et al. 2012). Indeed, many Twitter users only found out about the brands’

misconducts through social media posts. Thus, social media ends up showing its ability to creating communities of members who share the same beliefs, emotions and desires (Othman, Azmi et al. 2019, Yuksel, Thai et al. 2020). An extreme level of costumer engagement is proven as they post, share, re-post and comment, generating a great chain of negativity towards the brands (Leventhal, Wallace et al. 2014).

“Shame on every Louis Vuitton bag owner! Specially the people who think itʼs a style statement youʼre carrying. You are just carrying negativity and sadness with you.” (Angad Walia, @misterangad. 27th April 2020) – Retweeting: “Crocodiles Die Horrifically In Vietnam For Louis Vuitton Leather Bags PETA has exposed suffering on reptile farms in the U.S. and Africa, and now eyewitness footage reveals the horrifying reality for tens of thousands of crocodiles in Vietnam raised and violently...”

“Fuck You @MichaelKors” (@blvevalentine. 10th July 2018)- Retweeted from “Michael Kors & Gucci are now using fur from genetically mutated foxes, kept in wire cages before being gassed or having their necks broken” 60.9K retweets (@KatePow3ll. 24th August 2017)

Content regarding this issue show that animal care is a big concern among actual consumers, as well as companies’ misconduct on this field may cause negativity (RQ1), which is commonly expressed by activism such as boycotting (RQ2).

In these specific situations, it can be seen that brand hate or other kind of dislike culminate in strong activism such as boycotts and petitions. As boycotting is related to anti- consumption it is important to highlight that, given the superficiality of luxury goods as they are not essential utilities, consumers do not restrict the consumption. Rather, they reject those products, and show an active voice through reclamations, in order to urge other consumers to refrain from consuming the targeted brands (Cambefort and Pecot 2020, Rim, Lee et al. 2020).

“This is why I am #VeganForTheAnimals! All animals are sentient beings and do NOT deserve this abuse & torture. #BoycottLouisVuitton” (@MsBellaSophia. 30th January 2020)

Furthermore, several posts regarding consumer’s lifestyle options such as veganism show an incompatibility with brands that are not animal cruelty free. Therefore brand aversion is emphasized in such situations, given that consumers perceive a high distance

between a brand’s concept and their self-concepts, as well as show high brand prominence - memorable linkages of that brand misbehaviors to a consumer -(Fournier and Alvarez 2013, Park, Eisingerich et al. 2013).

“Please urge LVMH to shed fur and exotic skins from Louis Vuitton and all its other brands. petauk.org/lvmh Please, sign immediately against this cruelty!! And NEVER buy articles from much blood on their hands. @LouisVuitton #BOYCOTT!! They have so much blood on their hands…” (@TheaSPaanstra. 9th January 2020)

Several posts similar to the one above were retrieved from Twitter analysis. The increasing awareness about animal rights and companies’ ethics are leading consumers to engage in boycotts and petitions against brands with clear aims to restore fairness and to change companies’ behaviors (Dessart, Veloutsou et al., 2020). Effectively, there is a clear attempt to influence other consumers to abstain from purchasing those brands, on a clear perspective of anti-consumption (Cambefort and Pecot 2020) and brand aversion (Park, Eisingerich et al. 2013). Also, given the amount of retweets and interaction attached to this kind of activism, a wave of negativity is fuelled and magnified, threatening the brand’s reputation and integrity. As consumers do know about their increasing power in the brand co-creation process and, especially, the youngest ones know the power of negative WOM on social media as a potential brand co-destructor (Lund, Scarles et al. 2019), they engage in brand boycotts to achieve a brand’s behavioral change (Rim, Lee et al. 2020)

Nevertheless, as stated by Yuksel, Thai et al. (2020), brand boycotts might not be irredeemable if the company meets consumers’ requests and restores values and behaviors:

“Time for #LouisVuitton to stop their cruelty. Please sign, share, tweet and #BoycottLouisVuitton until they stop cruelty” (@PancerPaw. 26th December 2018)

 Social causes As part of CSR, social causes should comprise philanthropic dimensions. Thus, companies should promote society improvements, welfare and fairness, by making financial and human resource efforts to support education issues, charitable causes and health (Chahal and Sharma 2006, Uhlig, Mainardes et al. 2020).

Although in the scope of this study and given the sample, social issues do not appear to be one of major causes of negativity, there were some events that triggered negativity towards both brands (RQ1).

“Artistic Director @LouisVuitton had the NERVE to ONLY donate $50!! Total slap in the face to the cause!! He has millions or billions!! Greedy Fuck!” – concerning #BlackLivesMatter cause (@JediJoyBlog. 2nd June 2020)

“Actual trash. My fam and friends have donated more altogether than the CEO OF OFFWHITE AND LOUIS VUITTON HAS. Disgusting. “ (@veryberrysquish, 1st June 2020)

The great amount of posts concerning Louis Vuitton charity supporting, over the period of analysis, is attached to a global anti-racist movement in 2020. Consumers show their disappointment regarding the brand’s Artistic Director and his donation for this specific cause. These finding validate CSR as an antecedent of brand hate, given that consumers show contempt, shame and disgust (Zarantonello, Romani et al. 2016). However, for this specific segment there is no evidence of outcomes such as consequent brand avoidance, anti- consumption or boycotts. Instead, the main outcome might be undermining the company’s reputation.

“Michael Kors also not made an #blm or solidarity posts. I hope y’all cancel that tacky brand” (@savvymav. 15th June 2020)

Contrarily, Michael Kors has been criticized by, apparently, not having posted any solidarity content on SM platforms regarding the “Black Lives Matter” movement. Younger consumers are now using the word “cancel” on twitter activism against brands, which is a novelty for marketing researchers. In fact, literature revision so far does not mentio that word. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, using the word “cancel” in online contexts and when referred to a company, brand, individual, or institution it means their intention to stop supporting or using them. By “cancelling” a brand, consumers show their disappointment towards a brand’s transgressions and have the clear intention to hold the company to publicly accountable for their actions. Millennials and Gen. Z developed “cancel culture” as a boycott movement, in which individuals join to spread information about

companies’ misbehaviors and encourage others to stop consuming them. However, just as boycotts, “cancels” are not irreversible if companies’ show honest regret and strive to remediate their failures (YPulse 2020).

Also, as CSR obligations, companies are expected to promote both safety and social support. Several posts were made regarding a Louis Vuitton Gun in 2019 with intentions to boycott the brand for not promoting safety. Also, in 2020 Louis Vuitton was the target of consumer’s disappointment, shame and criticism for not providing the needed solidarity resources during a global pandemic period.

“Another reason to boycott @LouisVuitton” – Retweeting “Dallas rapper got a custom Louis Vuitton Glock for his birthday” (@Chuongiee, 22nd October 2019)

Who are you kidding @LouisVuitton ? 2 “Non-surgical” masks for “healthcare workers”???? Really?? You seriously have the least effective mask to offer to the most crutial and important service persons! SHAME! #LouisVuitton #Shame #StayAtHome (@withloveJN 21st April 2020)

 Brand authenticity Although this sub-category did not show greater relevance for answering the research questions, some posts regarding it were read. Indeed, consumers expect luxury brands to be creative and authentic, as well as confer an approach of transparency and consistency to their consumers (Rodrigues and Rodrigues 2019, Interbrand, 2019). Thus, a perceived failure on these criteria might trigger displeasure towards the brand, forming an antecedent of negativity (RQ1):

“WTF???? @LVMH Chairman & LV CEO have lost their minds. No, we don't want Made in the USA on anything LV. We want Made in France, the French way (…)” (#GrabYourWallet” (@ManoloGal. 18th October 2019)

Regarding Louis Vuitton, some consumers showed to be against changes on country of production, as they were promised to find Louis Vuitton’s product made in France with high

standards of quality, since the brand’s foundation. This validates the theories about implicit luxury values regarding brand’s heritage (Wiedmann, Hennigs et al. 2009) and country of origin (Bryson, Atwal et al. 2013). In this specific case, negativity is not explicitly demonstrated, but consumers do express their desires regarding company’s preservation of heritage and appear to be thwarted to changes (RQ2).

Also, Michael Kors has been accused to brand’s usurpation regarding an item that, apparently, is a copy from a Mexican designer. The apparent lack of creativity and misbehave associated to the theft of ideas, showed to be a source of negativity among consumers. This, not only is insightful for answering RQ1, as well as the expressions of negativity rely on boycotting calls, which is related to RQ2:

“Pig. Boycott this guy's pricey designs he did not originate.Michael Kors accused of 'stealing' traditional Mexican sweater design for Spring 2019 collection @MichaelKors” (@AllLive67624626, 15th September 2018).

 Environmental causes

One of the major issues on CSR is environment. The environmental care is a wide concept that comprises several dimensions such as sustaining eco-friendly environment, producing environment friendly products, recycling and make waste management (Chahal and Sharma 2006). Concerning to this, some consumers insisted to diffuse the rumor about the lack of waste management by Louis Vuitton. Once again, in this case they do not clearly express negative feelings neither pejorative messages, but show intentions to spread the message. Thus, environmental causes were not found relevant to answering the research questions on this study. Nevertheless, given the scope of the object of study, it does not mean that this issues are not target of enormous importance for other companies in the same industry, as well as potential threats for Louis Vuitton if the rumor is proven true and is not amended.

“DID YOU KNOW: Louis Vuitton has long been rumored to burn all unsold bags to avoid lowering brand cachet by selling discounted items in outlet stores.” (@storyofstuff. 2nd June 2018)

 Human rights Finally, as a part of CSR proper strategy, companies are expected to support employees’ well-being in dimensions such as safety, job security and fair treatment (Chahal and Sharma 2006). “Cambodian factory worker Soy Sros makes bags for luxury brands like Michael Kors. Concerned she and others at her factory would lose their jobs due to the pandemic, she posted to Facebook — and was sent to one of the most crowded prisons in the world” (@BuzzFeedNews 11th Jun 2020) – 7.3k retweets

“The exploitation of the global south inherent to the American fashion industry continues to be absolutely horrifying. Fuck Michael Mors, solidarity with the working women of Cambodia and the entire global south” (@bluestraveler. 11th June 2020)

In this context, several online protests were led due to employee’s unfair treatment by Michael Kors. Once again, callings for boycotts was the main manifestation among consumers, who showed feelings such as shame, disgust, contempt and disappointment. Consequently, human rights can incite negativity toward a brand (RQ1), and in this case boycotting arises as major expression of it (RQ2).

Furthermore, organizations are supposed to develop marketing strategies that aim to promote education and improvements in society, which means that they should not promote racial or other kind of discrimination. However, and because humans have a natural tendency to remember negative events (Hegner, Fetscherin et al. 2017), when a hate wave is diffused, previous actions might turn viral again as one more reason to hate that specific brand. This is particularly important, because even though boycotts and hate can be reversible, negative actions will always be remembered. Consequently, companies should abstain from engaging with polemic misbehaviors because once practiced, those will be always potential triggers of anti-brand activism, especially when accumulated with new transgressions:

“So the horrible reality of racism, cruelty, and inhumane treatment of blacks... Many Europeans place our ancestors in zoos and fashion brand @LouisVuitton sponsored human zoos that place black ppl as animals

inside of them, but we give them our money @Tip #louisVuitton #humanzoos” (@BirthofHiphopNY. 6th March 2019”

Consumer brand (dis)Identification

 Consumer-brand identity mismatch The overall consumption, especially for luxury goods, is related to consumer’s self- concept. Among this study’s sample, several consumers have shown their desire to distance themselves from Louis Vuitton and Michael Kors. Although the word “hate” is frequently used to express consumer’s negativity towards brands, the reviewed posts led to conclude that they do not always feel hatred. Sometimes, consumers simply dislike the brand regarding their aesthetic, creativity or cost- benefit (RQ1):

“I actually don't get this brand, cause the bags are looking horrible/cheezy with all those logos printed on them. I just can't see, why these are so fucking expensive. Looks so trashy!” (@HarmNeitzel. 29th March 2019)

In other situations, consumers express dislike not necessarily towards the brand but with the fact that it has become mainstream and no longer expresses scarcity and exclusiveness. Although traditional values of luxury have been challenged by the democratization of luxury (Rodrigues and Rodrigues 2019), some consumers still seek for conspicuous and materialist values and use luxury items to build personalities and establish their roles in society, with a clear desire to differentiate themselves from others regarding their status (Wiedmann, Hennigs et al. 2009). Consequently, as they perceive the vanishing of these luxury appeals, they start to avoid, not consume or even hate the brand. Therefore, it is possible to argue that implicit luxury values evanescence’s, as well as consumer’s personal tastes might lead to negative consumer-brand perceptions/relationships, thus answering RQ1:

“I hate how mainstream Michael Kors has become” (@_lexelizabeth. 24th June 2018)

“I literally hate Michael Kors. Like everything MK is so tacky to me” (@mstastypop. 25th September 2020)

“I hate the Neverfull by Louis Vuitton itʼs not even a “bag” itʼs just a tote that everyone has (@EdwardlovesHCO. 24th April 2020)

Also, the fact that these brands are easily copied and, therefore, can be possessed by anyone might also generate a kind of negativity:

“(…) This is why I started hating on Louis Vuitton because it can easily be copied and it’s just looks tacky and yuck now” (Andrea, @13274838_. 27th January 2020)

Moreover, there are consumers who find a deficit-value in luxury products, finding them to have low cost-benefit and, consequently, choose to reject the brand, showing avoidance strategies (Odoom, Kosiba et al. 2019). Nevertheless, given the type of the conducted netnography, it is not possible to know if these consumers have the financial means to posses that specific item (Iyer and Muncy 2009). However, they do show disagreement with such expensive prices in a pejorative language against brands. Additionally, it is mentioned that experiences are more money-worth than conspicuous items, which also proves that consumption patterns are changing, as younger generations are more experience-oriented. Millennials and Gen. Z are now seeking for novelty, excitement, and hedonism rather than showing wealth or status (Rodrigues and Rodrigues 2019).

““Louis Vuitton umbrella for $779. Does it cover shame? (…)” (@JamalFashions, 17th May 2020)

“I’ll always spend money on experiences. Fuck your Michael Kors” @_jessicakayy. 23rd June 2019)

“We really live in a time where material things define a person?? Michael Kors may not be Gucci or Louis Vuitton but maybe some people donʼt want to spend THOUSANDS of dollars on a simple ass PURSE...(…)” (@hellojewlsxo. 22nd June 2019)

Thus, researcher is also able to argue that changings in the consumption patterns from conspicuous-elitist logic to individualism-democratic logic can trigger negativity towards brands that are highly focused con capitalism and conspicuousness (Rodrigues and Rodrigues 2019), giving powerful understandings regarding RQ1. However, concerning how

consumers express that negativity, anti-consumption and avoidance are the main expressions linked to this, which enables to answering RQ2.

 Consumer’s values and beliefs

Another source of negativity might be the brand’s values or the brand’s connection to certain causes that mismatch the consumer’s ones (Bryson, Atwal et al. 2013) . Once again, this type of negativity is linked to personal self-concepts and it is not always controlled by brands. However, given the increasing number of luxury consumers, brands might be aware that they should carefully analyze their strategies when linking themselves to certain causes, celebrities, and events, among others.

“Shame on you #louisvuitton for endorsing bullfighting. Bullfighting is barbaric cruelty by cruel cowards. The bulls have more dignity than coward matadors with no balls and tiny brains.. You are a disgrace! @LouisVuitton @LVServices (@Cat_Kapow, 26th April 2020)”

The major posts regarding consumer’s self-ideologies and values are linked to politic causes in the USA, given the President Donald Trump visited Louis Vuitton and opened a factory in Texas. However, this turned into a viral movement calling for boycotting Louis Vuitton, which is damaging for the brand.

“Well..looks like we need to boycott designer declares Trump 'a joke' after Texas workshop visit @LouisVuitton @LouisVuitton_US” (@lawanap6. 23rd October 2019)

“When Brand Trump Met Brand Vuitton - I own 3 LV purses. The last I got at Christmas. I will NEVER buy or accept another again #boycottlouisvuitton @LouisVuitton @LVMH” (@TraceyKent. 18th October 2019)

Manifestations of avoidance and anti-consumption of that specific brand were also reviewed, and it is not related to functional values, brand experience or other sources of disappointment, but with the brand’s association to a political party, which was not appreciated by several consumers.

Furthermore, as already discussed in the theory, chosen celebrities for advertising or representing the brand may cause negative effects on consumer’s perception, if they not feel empathy with that person or the storytelling (Romani, Grappi et al. 2013, Odoom, Kosiba et al. 2019). Usually, this kind of negativity is attached to brand avoidance concept by researchers. However, consumer’s showed intentions to boycott brands due to apparently racism from their celebrities representatives. “We boycott every brand using racist model #BellaHadidIsRacist @Dior @CalvinKlein @Versace @MichaelKors” (@enjoyily. 17th June 2019)

The mismatch of personal ideologies and beliefs and brand’s ones is, in fact, a source of negativity (RQ1), and it is commonly expressed by boycotts and anti-consumption (RQ2).

5. Conclusions

5.1. Theoretical Implications

Negative consumers’ perceptions towards brands and consequent outcomes are quite recent in marketing literature. For years, several studies provided evidence regarding established relationships between brands and consumers, and focused their research on positive aspects, such as brand passion and love, which generates loyalty (Alvarez and Fournier 2016, Fetscherin, Guzman et al. 2019). However, recently, negative relationships started to be a target of attention, especially because companies perceived the urge to develop strategies to deal with dissatisfied consumers and protect brands’ image and integrity. The lack of information about consumers’ negative emotions, feelings and relations with brands has been complemented over the past few years (Park, Eisingerich et al. 2013, Kucuk 2019, Odoom, Kosiba et al. 2019, Cambefort and Pecot 2020). However, the major contributions to this field are applied to the overall consumption and, therefore, the provided results cover a wide range of industries. This study aims to analyze negativity towards fashion luxury brands, which is a specific segment of the luxury market. Despite several significant contributions, in the luxury consumption dynamics, already exist literature lacks in understanding of how negativity towards luxury might emerge as well as its consequences to the brands. Several changes in society over the last decades challenged luxury brands to redefine their traditional strategies. Although the presence of luxury brands in social media networks started to be vital for their competitiveness in the new market paradigms, there is a remaining paradox between luxury scope of exclusiveness and scarcity and its presence in social platforms, which are characterized by their ubiquitousness nature (Pentina, Guilloux et al. 2018). Furthermore, the advent of the Internet platforms enabled the empowerment of costumers, since they are now able to be a brand’s co-creators or co-destructors (Lund, Scarles et al. 2019). The brand’s inability to control the spread of negative information and its impact on other consumers’ perceptions and on the brand’s reputation and image, appears to be the major threat of these new forms of interaction between both consumer-to- consumer and consumer-to-brand. Through a netnographic approach, this study aims to understand consumers’ behavioral dynamics regarding negativity towards luxury brands. Thus, the aim is to use online communities to get insights that allows researcher to answer two questions: (1) What are the

antecedents of consumer negativity in the context of fashion luxury brands in online communities?, (2) How consumers express different types of negativity in the context of fashion luxury in online communities?. The netnographic approach allows the researcher to obtain public online information about consumers’ interactions, which reflects their real emotions, experiences and perceptions (Kozinets 2002, Heinonen and Medberg 2018). Through an observational methodology in a natural and unobtrusive way, spontaneous conversations in an anti-brand community (PissedConsumer) and on a SM platform (Twitter) are targets of this analysis. By performing the content analysis, evidence of brand negativity was found regarding several aspects such as: dissatisfaction with brand performance, whereby lacks on functional values and displeasures with costumer service, were pointed as the major reasons; disappointment due to brands’ CSR misconducts; disharmony between consumers’ self- concept and brand’s image; and incongruence between brands’ ideologies or beliefs and consumers’ ones. Thus, regarding the antecedents of negativity, this study empirically validates previous theories proposed by several marketing researchers (Hegner, Fetscherin et al. 2017, Wu, Qin et al. 2018, Curina, Francioni et al. 2019, Odoom, Kosiba et al. 2019, Cambefort and Pecot 2020, Dessart, Veloutsou et al., 2020). Furthermore, the results also corroborate the importance of luxury implicit values on consumers’ perceptions (Wiedmann, Hennigs et al. 2009), as they show negative feelings if the fading of these values is perceived (Bryson, Atwal et al. 2013). Specifically the importance of the quality value, uniqueness value, self-identity value, usability value and price value, should be highlighted. Nevertheless, the shift in luxury consumption patterns is also confirmed by the empirical results. Indeed, younger consumers’ are seeking for hedonic experiences, greater quality for money and self-fulfillment, rather that ostentation and status symbols (Rodrigues and Rodrigues 2019). As they are more informed and educated, they also tend to show hate for brands that do not promote well-being and society’s improvements (Kapferer and Michaut-Denizeau 2020). Alongside with these validations, this study deepens and extends the theoretical background, as it shows these antecedents of negativity but directly applied in the fashion luxury context. Bryson, Atwal et al. (2013) have already performed a conceptualisation of brand hate antecedents among luxury brands’ consumers. However, during the literature review their study appeared to be the only one focousing negative on perceptions towards

luxury brands, and it was perfomed based on interviewes. Consequently, the answers might not be as spontaneous or realistic as in an online brand community. Therefore, the novelty in this study is the expansion of the Bryson, Atwal et al. (2013)’s results, relying in the understanding of the emerging process of negativity in an online environment, with constant updates and interactions between consumers, who are able to influence each other. An important empirical implication is related to the “Negative Double Jeopardy” (NDJ) concept proposed by Kucuk (2008), in which the strongest brands are expected to attract more negative attention than the weaker ones. Consequently, Louis Vuitton was expected to be a target of higher levels of hatred and activism than Michael Kors. However, the two performed studies showed controversial results. Interestingly, in study 2 (PissedConsumer forum), Michael Kors is by far the target of more complaints, which is not coherent to NDJ, while in study 1 (Twitter) Louis Vuitton showed to be more scrutinized, validating the NDJ. Indeed, Twitter embraces a wider range of discussed variables, and when analyzed altogether, the NDJ is verified. However, these controversial findings could be explained from different points of view. On one hand, there is a divergence in the nature of these two platforms. While PissedConsumer is a complaint forum, whose activity relies on sharing of negative experiences with brands, Twitter is a microblogging platform where users express opinions and feelings about multiple subjects. Therefore the later covers a wider range of potential negativity towards brands, which goes beyond direct experiences with brands. From this point of view, it could possibly be argued that Louis Vuitton has a superior and more efficient brand performance management than Michael Kors. This could give important insights about true luxury brands’ management and their sources of negativity from consumers. That is to say that, perhaps the major cause of negative consumer-brand relationships with Louis Vuitton arises from the company’s misconduct of its CSR and due to consumer’s not identifying with brands’ values and image. Contrarily, Michael Kors’ failures might relate mainly with brand’s performance, while CSR and consumers’ self-concept are also sources of negativity, but not with the same strength. This possible interpretation of results also validates the theory that true-luxury brands (as Louis Vuitton) are expected to offer great standards of quality, functionality and hedonic experiences (Kapferer 1997, Rodrigues and Rodrigues 2019).

The above leads to the second possible interpretation of the results. Thus, on the other hand, Louis Vuitton could have a better management of their brand performance, because the company knows that its reputation might be threaten by failures on delivering the promised values. However, the brand’s management might not have followed the revolution of markets and have underestimated the power of the new generations (Millennials and Gen.Z), who are increasingly aware of ethical issues, especially about animal protection, environmental care and social issues. Contrarily, Michael Kors as a new-luxury brand might not have such high standards of quality and costumer services, but consumers do have high expectations towards it because their consumption is still motivated by aspiration and quality driven (Rodrigues and Rodrigues 2019). Indeed, Silverstein et. al (2005, p.1) define these goods as “possessing higher levels of quality, taste and aspiration but not so expensive as others in the same category” (Rodrigues and Rodrigues 2019). Thus, as these products are not so expensive as the true-luxury ones, the brand’s commitment with superior quality might not be as strong, but consumers might still expect it to be. Therefore, dissatisfactions due to bad performance trigger high levels of negativity. By contrast, the neo-luxury brand’s management of CSR might be more aware of the new generation’s patterns of consumption. Nevertheless, misconducts on CSR trigger huge levels of negativity, as shown by the empirical results. Also, a possible interpretation is that Louis Vuitton’s consumers do not have such levels of engagement on anti-brand communities (such as Pissedconsumer) as Michael Kors’ ones have. Therefore, it could explain why the number of posts has such a big difference in this platform regarding these two brands. Perhaps, Louis Vuitton’s consumers prefer other ways to show their disappointment, such as direct complains to the company or even private negative WOM (Romani, Grappi et al. 2012). Indeed, not all the dissatisfied consumers choose the same online platforms to complain, or even might not use any of them. Then, concerning RQ2, important results were found. Firstly, the validation of online communities theories is clear. Individuals develop a sense of belonging in such spaces, which encourage them to actively express their anger and displeasure against companies (Dessart, Veloutsou et al. 2020). Also, the power of the SM platforms as WOM diffusors showed to be unquestionable (Othman, Azmi et al. 2019), especially regarding negative perceptions, that are more liable to be remembered than good ones (Darke, Ashworth et al. 2010). Regarding the found expressions of negativity in this study, it is possible to validate and extend different conceptual theories as brand hate, brand avoidance, brand aversion, anti-

consumption and boycotting. However, regarding failures on brand’s performance, the major manifestations are expressed by hate feelings, avoidance intentions and spread of negative WOM, whereby sometimes consumers encourage others to avoid these brands too. Regarding the Twitter analysis, and given the lower amount of testimonials regarding brand’s performance, the major contributions of this study corroborate theoretical backgrounds about boycotting and anti-consumption. Indeed, the study expands literature given that misconducts of CSR lead to consumer’s boycotting strategies, which are pure manifestations of anti-consumption, since they show resistance towards a brand, and are also attacking strategies. In such cases, consumers cannot show passive attitudes, such as avoidance or even aversion. Contrarily, they actively manifest their displeasure, disgust and anger and spread boycotting actions and petitions to harm and, ultimately, destroy the brand (Rim, Lee et al. 2020, Dessart, Veloutsou et al., 2020). Regarding other outcomes of negativity, results show avoidance when consumers do not feel connected to the brands’ image and do not want to integrate it on their identity building process (Lee, Conroy et al. 2009, Odoom, Kosiba et al. 2019). However they do feel the need to show their disappointment and disconnection to others in the community. Finally, the theory of brand aversion is also verified, given that some consumers feel highly distant from brands’ concepts and have brands’ actions strongly present in their memories, engaging in an aversion behavior (Fournier and Alvarez 2013, Park, Eisingerich et al. 2013)

5.2. Managerial Implications

The interpretation of our results allowed us to understand that several factors might trigger brand negativity among consumers, highlighting consumer dissatisfaction due to functional values or provided services, consumer’s displeasure regarding corporate social responsibility (CSR) actions taken by companies and consumer’s personal values and beliefs mismatching the brand’s ones. Markets are witnessing the dilution of boundaries between online and offline environments and knowing that online conversations and interactions reflect offline realities, since “costumers bring their offline identities, values, meanings and other characteristics online” (Heinonen and Medberg 2018). Therefore, the non-hierarchical nature of online platforms empowered consumers over brands, making them play active roles in brand co- creation and co-destruction (Lund, Scarles et al. 2019). Indeed, the lack of companies’ control

over the conversations about their brands can be a major threat for luxury management nowadays. The power and quickness of electronic word-of-mouth (WOM) is unquestionable, but is also known that negative experiences tend to be more memorable than positive ones (Hegner, Fetscherin et al. 2017). As Bryson et al. (2013) mentioned, reputation perhaps is even more important in the luxury sector than in others. In fact, luxury brands value promise implies higher standards of quality than other markets, therefore a failure might be unacceptable and irremediable due to the dissolving of consumers’ trust and positive perceptions. Our findings show great amounts of costumers’ dissatisfaction with the analyzed brands and their power to spread the messages. Therefore, luxury brands’ managers should pay more attention to these online interactions, which usually take place outside of the brand’s official pages, and are the ones that threat brands the most. An efficient control of negativity and the definition of strategies to recover the consumers’ loyalty should be taken. In fact, luxury brands delayed their entrance on Social Media platforms due to the paradox on the scope of exclusivity and the nature of these networks. Perhaps, these companies underestimated the power of younger generations and have no sufficient strategies to deal with their unprecedented values and beliefs. The society’s urge to protect the environment, the animals and claim for equity and fairness in the world, was a challenging process to all the economic sectors. However, due to highest expectations regarding luxury brands, these should be the most outstanding on delivering accurate social responsibility conducts. Thus, the advice for marketing managers in the luxury sector should be delivering the promised quality and services, and keeping an aspirational and desirable value, in order to conserve their heritage, while also adapting to these new ideologies and perform the best they can. Also, the findings suggest that consumer-brand disidentification is a powerful trigger of negativity. Although companies’ cannot control consumers’ tastes and preferences, they can control the causes, events and celebrities they associate and integrate in the brand’s image. It has been proved that consumers chose to distance themselves or even attack brands that are linked to people or causes they do not like or support (Odoom, Kosiba et al. 2019). Hence, we do advise brands to carefully choose these variables and try to refrain from to associating with potentially controversial issues such as politics or events that do not promote living beings welfare.

Finally, brands should carefully plan their marketing strategies in order not to create false expectations for consumers. Thus, quality and costumer’s services performance should be aligned with their advertising proposals in order not to disappoint consumers. In the same way it is not congruent to empathize their CSR and then take opposite actions, such as lack of waste management, engage in animal cruelty, and disrespecting human rights or even not supporting charitable causes. Also, companies’ should be highly committed to their past promises, which conveys to them an heritage value. Thus, changing the country of production when historically produced in France (e.g. Louis Vuitton), or neglect creativity and design promises, might cause anti-brand movements, which subsequently bring memories of other past misconducts and create huge waves of hatred, dissatisfaction and negativity.

5.3. Limitations and Further Investigation

Despite its contribution to extend previous research about consumer’s negativity within luxury brands, this study is subject to some limitations. Firstly, this study is limited to the two analyzed brands – Louis Vuitton and Michael Kors. That restricts the empirical results to these two brands, which might not enable the research to be generalized to other brands. In the same way, since fashion luxury is only a subcategory of the luxury industry, it also might restrict generalizations to the whole industry. Thus, future research may replicate the research scheme to other brands or other categories of the luxury industry. Secondly, despite all its benefits, a netnographic approach might be limited. Indeed, it is difficult to generalize the results according to demographic variables. Especially due to actual privacy policies on the Internet, designing a generational or cultural cohort is quite limitative for the researcher, as well as the measurement of other variables, such as education level, house income, profession, ethnic background and so on. Accordingly, the netnography was performed on two different platforms therefore the results are limited to the testimonials inside those communities. Despite the different nature of the analyzed networks, which enrich the potential results, further research might include more networks. Indeed, the Internet and Social Media are the most effective communication channels nowadays (Pentina, Guilloux et al. 2018), thus Youtube, Instagram and Facebook can give important insights, as well as other type of communities such as blogs and forums, allowing to extend this research. In the same way, the data content on this study is limited to

the observation periods in the two studies. Hence, other studies can analyze comments over larger periods of time, to better understand the evolution of consumer’s experiences. Also, given that netnographic studies can be complemented with other ethnographic methods (Kozinets 2002), such as interviews and surveys to extend the knowledge about the new generations’ perceptions regarding luxury brands, given that they are currently the most important segment of this market (Rodrigues and Rodrigues 2019). However, this recommendation is just a complement, since the great benefits that observational and non- intrusive methodology, is to allow researchers to have realistic insights about individuals’ dynamics inside a community and therefore, bias-free (Kozinets 2015). Finally, given the lack of information regarding fashion luxury brands as target of anti- brand activism, further research can explore the tangible consequences associated to boycotting and other movements directed at the brands. The results of negativity on sales, value and brand’s reputation might be a target of future analysis to extend the antecedents and ways to express negativity.

6. Final Considerations

Given the newness of digital platforms as a ubiquitous part of contemporary’s society lifestyle, the research about its implications on brands’ values and meanings is also recent in the literature. Since these new forms of interaction empowered consumers over brands regarding its value co-creation and possible co-destruction process, this study aimed to understand the drivers and outcomes of arising negativity from consumers towards brands. Yet, several recent studied focused their analysis on positive aspects of consumer’s integration in brand’s value creation, but lacks on the opposite. Due to the importance of reputation in the luxury sector, possibily higher than in other economic sectors, this study aimed to understand which variables can be in the basis of forming negative feeling towards these brands, and how do consumers express it. Considering the relevance of online networks in the influence of consumers’ perceptions, this investigation was conducted in the context of an anti-brand community and a social media platform. Through a netnographic approach, the researcher was able to analyze spontaneous interactions between consumers regarding luxury brands, analyzing testimonials, conversations, images, and videos. On one hand, the results emphasizes that luxury consumers have high brand’s expectations, especially regarding functional values, quality values, hedonic values and self- identity values. However, the shift on consumption patterns motivations by new generations’ values and beliefs, lead to conclude that corporate social responsibility activities are reaching greater importance on consumers’ feelings, perceptions and, therefore, purchase intentions. Hence, a failure on delivering the promised value both regarding luxury implicit values and corporate social responsibility conducts can be a trigger for brand negativity. On the other hand, it was found that consumers insist in show their anger against brands, engaging in high levels of brand hate, brand avoidance, anti-consumption and brand aversion. The most effective mean they found to express their activism is by spreading negative word-of-mouth, participate in brand boycotting and encourage or advise other consumers not to consume these brands. Due to the increasing power of online communities as information diffusors, companies run the risk of seeing their brands’ image and reputation damaged and being affected by consumers’ brand co-destruction process.

Finally, further researches might extend the scope of this study to more brands and/or segments of the luxury industry. Future studies might also validate these results on other online platforms, covering a wider range of interactions. Also, the measurement of consumers’ activism in luxury companies’ results and performance could be a target of investigation, offering a extended value to this investigation.

Bibliographic References

Ahluwalia, R., et al. (2000). "Consumer response to negative publicity: The moderating role of commitment." Journal of marketing research 37(2): 203-214.

Ahmed, S. and S. Hashim (2018). "THE MODERATING EFFECT OF BRAND RECOVERY ON BRAND HATE AND DESIRE FOR RECONCILIATION: A PLS- MGA APPROACH." International Journal of Business & Society 19(3).

Alba, J. W. and R. J. Lutz (2013). "Broadening (and narrowing) the scope of brand relationships." Journal of consumer psychology 23(2): 265-268.

Albert, N. and D. Merunka (2013). "The role of brand love in consumer-brand relationships." Journal of Consumer Marketing 30(3): 258-266.

Albert, N., et al. (2008). "When consumers love their brands: Exploring the concept and its dimensions." Journal of Business research 61(10): 1062-1075.

Alvarez, C. and S. Fournier (2016). "Consumers’ relationships with brands." Current Opinion in Psychology 10: 129-135.

Bain & Company (2019). Luxury Goods Worldwide Market Study, Fall–Winter 2018.

Barger, V., et al. (2016). "Social media and consumer engagement: a review and research agenda." Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing 10(4): 268-287.

Barry, C. (2018, Jun 7, 2018). "Casual fashion driving growth in luxury goods industry." Retrieved Jun, 19, 2020 from https://business.financialpost.com/pmn/business- pmn/casual-fashion-driving-growth-in-luxury-goods-industry.

Batra, R., et al. (2012). "Brand love." Journal of marketing 76(2): 1-16.

Baumeister, R. F., et al. (2001). "Bad is stronger than good." Review of General Psychology 5(4): 323-370.

BCG (2020). "2020 Luxury First Look." 6th. Retrieved June, 10, 2020, from https://cache.luxurydaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/2020-Luxury-FirstLook.pdf.

Berendt, J., et al. (2018). "Marketing, get ready to rumble—How rivalry promotes distinctiveness for brands and consumers." Journal of Business research 88: 161-172.

Bernstein, R. (2015). "MOVE OVER MILLENNIALS -- HERE COMES GEN Z." Retrieved Jun, 8, 2020, from https://adage.com/article/cmo-strategy/move-millennials- gen-z/296577.

Bilge, H. A. (2015). "Luxury consumption: literature review."

Bringer, J. D., et al. (2006). "Using computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software to develop a grounded theory project." Field methods 18(3): 245-266.

Brogi, S. (2014). "Online brand communities: a literature review." Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 109: 385-389.

Brogi, S., et al. (2013). "The effects of online brand communities on brand equity in the luxury fashion industry." International journal of engineering business management 5(Godište 2013): 5-32.

Bryson, D., et al. (2013). "Towards the conceptualisation of the antecedents of extreme negative affect towards luxury brands." Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal.

Bryson, D., et al. (2013). "Towards the conceptualisation of the antecedents of extreme negative affect towards luxury brands." Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 16(4): 393-405.

Business Insider (2020). "The 9 most valuable luxury brands in the world." Retrieved 7 Apr, 2020, from https://www.businessinsider.com/most-valuable-luxury-brands-in-the-world.

Business Insider (2020). "Generation Z News." Retrieved Jun, 13, 2020, from https://www.businessinsider.com/generation-z.

Cambefort, M. and F. Pecot (2020). "Theorizing rightist anti-consumption." Marketing Theory 20(3): 385-407.

Capece, G. and R. Costa (2013). "The new neighbourhood in the internet era: network communities serving local communities." Behaviour & Information Technology 32(5): 438- 448.

Carroll, B. A. and A. C. Ahuvia (2006). "Some antecedents and outcomes of brand love." Marketing Letters 17(2): 79-89.

Casaló, L. V., et al. (2008). "Promoting consumer's participation in virtual brand communities: A new paradigm in branding strategy." Journal of Marketing Communications 14(1): 19-36.

Chahal, H. and R. Sharma (2006). "Implications of corporate social responsibility on marketing performance: A conceptual framework." Journal of Services Research 6(1).

Chatzidakis, A. and M. S. Lee (2013). "Anti-consumption as the study of reasons against." Journal of Macromarketing 33(3): 190-203.

Cheng, M. (2019). 8 Characteristics Of Millennials That Support Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Forbes.

Chevalier, J. A. and D. Mayzlin (2006). "The effect of word of mouth on sales: Online book reviews." Journal of marketing research 43(3): 345-354.

Curina, I., et al. (2019). "Traits and peculiarities of different brand hate behaviours." Journal of strategic Marketing: 1-20.

Curina, I., et al. (2020). "Brand hate and non-repurchase intention: A service context perspective in a cross-channel setting." Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 54: 102031.

D’Arpizio, C. and F. Levato (2017). "The millennial state of mind." Bain & Co.

Darke, P. R., et al. (2010). "Great expectations and broken promises: Misleading claims, product failure, expectancy disconfirmation and consumer distrust." Journal of the Academy of marketing Science 38(3): 347-362.

Deloitte (2019). Global Powers of Luxury Goods 2019.

Dessart, L., et al. (2016). What drives anti-brand community behaviours: an examination of online hate of technology brands. Let’s Get Engaged! Crossing the Threshold of Marketing’s Engagement Era, Springer: 473-477.

Dessart, L., et al. (2015). "Consumer engagement in online brand communities: a social media perspective." Journal of Product & Brand Management.

Dessart, L., et al. (2020). "Brand negativity: a relational perspective on anti-brand community participation." European Journal of Marketing.

Dessart, L., et al. (, 2020). "Brand negativity: a relational perspective on anti-brand community participation." European Journal of Marketing.

Dholakia, U. M., et al. (2004). "A social influence model of consumer participation in network-and small-group-based virtual communities." International journal of research in marketing 21(3): 241-263.

Fetscherin, M. (2019b). "The five types of brand hate: How they affect consumer behavior." Journal of Business research 101: 116-127.

Fetscherin, M., et al. (2019). "Latest research on brand relationships: introduction to the special issue." Journal of Product & Brand Management 28(2): 133-139.

Fournier, S. and C. Alvarez (2013). "Relating badly to brands." Journal of consumer psychology 23(2): 253-264.

Godes, D., et al. (2005). "The firm's management of social interactions." Marketing Letters 16(3-4): 415-428.

Goldsmith, R. E. and D. Horowitz (2006). "Measuring motivations for online opinion seeking." Journal of interactive advertising 6(2): 2-14.

Granot, E., et al. (2013). "Populence: exploring luxury for the masses." Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 21(1): 31-44.

Grégoire, Y., et al. (2015). "Managing social media crises with your customers: The good, the bad, and the ugly." Business Horizons 58(2): 173-182.

Grégoire, Y., et al. (2009). "When customer love turns into lasting hate: The effects of relationship strength and time on customer revenge and avoidance." Journal of marketing 73(6): 18-32.

Guzmán, F. and D. Davis (2017). "The impact of corporate social responsibility on brand equity: consumer responses to two types of fit." Journal of Product & Brand Management.

Hamer, L. O. (2001). "Us versus them: oppositional brand loyalty and the cola wars." ACR North American Advances.

Hegner, S. M., et al. (2017). "Determinants and outcomes of brand hate." Journal of Product & Brand Management 26(1): 13-25.

Heinonen, K. and G. Medberg (2018). "Netnography as a tool for understanding customers: implications for service research and practice." Journal of services marketing 32(6): 657-679.

Hessekiel, D. (2018). Engaging Gen Z In Your Social Impact Efforts. Forbes.

Hickman, T. M. and J. C. Ward (2013). "Implications of brand communities for rival brands: negative brand ratings, negative stereotyping of their consumers and negative word-of- mouth." Journal of Brand Management 20(6): 501-517.

Hitewise (2017). Luxury Millennial Shoppers.

Hitewise (2017b) Which Brands Are Reaching Luxury Millennial Shoppers?

Hoffmann, S. (2011). "Anti-consumption as a means to save jobs." European Journal of Marketing 45(11/12): 1702-1714.

Hoffmann, S. and M. S. Lee (2016). "Consume less and be happy? Consume less to be happy! An introduction to the special issue on anti-consumption and consumer well-being." Journal of Consumer Affairs 50(1): 3-18.

Hogg, M. K., et al. (2009). "Mapping symbolic (anti-) consumption." Journal of Business research 62(2): 148-159.

Hollenbeck, C. R. and G. M. Zinkhan (2006). "Consumer activism on the internet: The role of anti-brand communities." ACR North American Advances.

Hollenbeck, C. R. and G. M. Zinkhan (2010). "Anti‐brand communities, negotiation of brand meaning, and the learning process: The case of Wal‐Mart." Consumption, Markets and Culture 13(3): 325-345.

Interbrand (, 2019). "Best Global Brands 2019 Rankings." from https://www.interbrand.com/best-brands/best-global-brands/2019/ranking/.

Iyer, R. and J. A. Muncy (2009). "Purpose and object of anti-consumption." Journal of Business research 62(2): 160-168.

Japutra, A. and S. Molinillo (2019). "Responsible and active brand personality: On the relationships with brand experience and key relationship constructs." Journal of Business research 99: 464-471.

Johnson, A. R., et al. (2011). "A Coal in the Heart: Self-Relevance as a Post-Exit Predictor of Consumer Anti-Brand Actions." Journal of Consumer Research 38(1): 108-125.

Kaiser, G. and N. Presmeg (, 2019 p.96). Compendium for Early Career Researchers in Mathematics Education, Springer Nature.

Kapferer, J.-N. (1997). "Managing luxury brands." Journal of Brand Management 4(4): 251- 259.

Kapferer, J.-N. and A. Michaut-Denizeau (2017). Is luxury compatible with sustainability? Luxury consumers’ viewpoint. Advances in luxury brand management, Springer: 123-156.

Kapferer, J.-N. and A. Michaut-Denizeau (2020). "Are millennials really more sensitive to sustainable luxury? A cross-generational international comparison of sustainability consciousness when buying luxury." Journal of Brand Management 27(1): 35-47.

Kim, E., et al. (2014). "Brand followers’ retweeting behavior on Twitter: How brand relationships influence brand electronic word-of-mouth." Computers in Human Behavior 37: 18-25.

Kim, J.-H. (2019). "Imperative challenge for luxury brands." International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management.

Knittel, Z., et al. (2016). "Brand avoidance among Generation Y consumers." Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 19(1): 27-43.

Ko, E., et al. (2019). "What is a luxury brand? A new definition and review of the literature." Journal of Business research 99: 405-413.

Kozinets, R. (2015b). "Management netnography: axiological and methodological developments in online cultural business research." The Sage handbook of qualitative business and management research methods. London: Sage.

Kozinets, R. V. (2002). "The field behind the screen: Using netnography for marketing research in online communities." Journal of marketing research 39(1): 61-72.

Kozinets, R. V. (2015). Netnography: redefined. London, England, SAGE.

Krepapa, A. and S. Regkoukou "Ion Beratis (2016),“Engagement with Luxury Brands on Instagram: An Exploratory Analysis”, Global Innovation and Knowledge Academy (GIKA 2016) conference proceedings." Marketing 32(1): 15-27.

Krishnamurthy, S. and S. U. Kucuk (2009). "Anti-branding on the internet." Journal of Business research 62(11): 1119-1126.

Kucuk, S. U. (2008). "Negative double jeopardy: The role of anti-brand sites on the internet." Journal of Brand Management 15(3): 209-222.

Kucuk, S. U. (2010). "Negative double jeopardy revisited: A longitudinal analysis." Journal of Brand Management 18(2): 150-158.

Kucuk, S. U. (2016). What Is Brand Hate? Brand Hate, Springer: 17-36.

Kucuk, S. U. (2018). "Macro-level antecedents of consumer brand hate." Journal of Consumer Marketing 35(5): 555-564.

Kucuk, S. U. (2019). "Consumer Brand Hate: Steam rolling whatever I see." Psychology & Marketing 36(5): 431-443.

Ladhari, R., et al. (2019). "Generation Y and online fashion shopping: Orientations and profiles." Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 48: 113-121.

Lee, M. S. and C. S. Y. Ahn (2016). "Anti‐consumption, materialism, and consumer well‐ being." Journal of Consumer Affairs 50(1): 18-47.

Lee, M. S., et al. (2009). "Brand avoidance: a negative promises perspective." ACR North American Advances.

Lee, M. S., et al. (, 2009b). "Anti-consumption and brand avoidance." Journal of Business research 62(2): 169-180.

Leventhal, R. C., et al. (2014). "Exploring positively-versus negatively-valenced brand engagement: a conceptual model." Journal of Product & Brand Management.

Leventhal, R. C., et al. (2014). "Consumer engagement with self-expressive brands: brand love and WOM outcomes." Journal of Product & Brand Management.

Lin, H., et al. (2014). "Determinants of users’ continuance of social networking sites: A self- regulation perspective." Information & Management 51(5): 595-603.

Liu, X., et al. (2019). "Examining the impact of luxury brand's social media marketing on customer engagement: Using big data analytics and natural language processing." Journal of Business research.

Loureiro, S. M. C., et al. (2020). "Enhancing brand coolness through perceived luxury values: Insight from luxury fashion brands." Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 57: 102211.

Lund, N. F., et al. (2019). "The brand value continuum: Countering co-destruction of destination branding in social media through storytelling." Journal of Travel Research: 0047287519887234.

Luxe Digital (2019, 16 March, 2020). "The 15 Most Popular Luxury Brands Online In 2019." Retrieved 10 Mar, 2020, from https://luxe.digital/business/digital-luxury-ranking/most- popular-luxury-brands/.

Luxury Society (2019). "Louis Vuitton and Gucci Are The Most Searched Luxury Brands,." Retrieved May, 26, 2020, from https://www.luxurysociety.com/en/articles/2019/10/louisvuitton-and-gucci-are-most-searched-luxury- brands/?ueid=48765b8402&utm_source=Luxury+Society+Newsletter&utm_campaign=f 8e45135c9- EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_10_02_11_41&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_d63682b cfa-f8e45135c9-61169821.

Mafini, C., et al. (2014). "Shopper typologies amongst a Generation Y consumer cohort and variations in terms of age in the fashion apparel market." Acta Commercii 14(1): 1-11.

Makarem, S. C. and H. Jae (2016). "Consumer boycott behavior: An exploratory analysis of twitter feeds." Journal of Consumer Affairs 50(1): 193-223.

Malär, L., et al. (2011). "Emotional brand attachment and brand personality: The relative importance of the actual and the ideal self." Journal of marketing 75(4): 35-52.

Marcie Merriman (2015). "What if the next big disruptor isn’t a what but a who." Retrieved Jun, 8, 2020, from https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/EY-what-if-the-next- big-disruptor-isnt-a-what-but-a-who/$File/EY-what-if-the-next-big-disruptor-isnt-a-what- but-a-who.pdf.

McAlexander, J. H., et al. (2002). "Building brand community." Journal of marketing 66(1): 38-54.

Melancon, J. P. and V. Dalakas (2018). "Consumer social voice in the age of social media: Segmentation profiles and relationship marketing strategies." Business Horizons 61(1): 157- 167.

Monahan, L., et al. (2017). Hate Does Not Have to Hurt: The Influence of Hate- Acknowledging Advertising on Positive Word of Mouth. Creating Marketing Magic and Innovative Future Marketing Trends, Springer: 477-481.

Muniz, A. M. and T. C. O'guinn (2001). "Brand community." Journal of Consumer Research 27(4): 412-432.

Muntinga, D. G., et al. (2011). "Introducing COBRAs: Exploring motivations for brand- related social media use." International Journal of advertising 30(1): 13-46.

N. Danziger, P. (2018) 4 Mega-Trends Ahead For The Luxury Market In 2019: Expect Turmoil And Slowing Sales.

N. Danziger, P. (2019). 3 Ways Millennials And Gen-Z Consumers Are Radically Transforming The Luxury Market. Forbes.

Odoom, R., et al. (2019). "Brand avoidance: underlying protocols and a practical scale." Journal of Product & Brand Management.

Okonkwo, U. (2009). "The luxury brand strategy challenge." Journal of Brand Management 16(5-6): 287-289.

Osuna Ramírez, S. A., et al. (2019). "I hate what you love: brand polarization and negativity towards brands as an opportunity for brand management." Journal of Product & Brand Management.

Othman, A. K., et al. (2019). "The Relationship between Social Media and Customer Engagement among Social Media Users." MALAYSIAN JOURNAL OF CONSUMER AND FAMILY ECONOMICS 23.

Özbölük, T. and Y. Dursun (2017). "Online brand communities as heterogeneous gatherings: a netnographic exploration of Apple users." Journal of Product & Brand Management.

Park, C. W., et al. (2013). "Attachment–aversion (AA) model of customer–brand relationships." Journal of consumer psychology 23(2): 229-248.

Park, C. W., et al. (2010). "Brand attachment and brand attitude strength: Conceptual and empirical differentiation of two critical brand equity drivers." Journal of marketing 74(6): 1- 17.

Parker, K. and R. Igielnik (2020). "On the Cusp of Adulthood and Facing an Uncertain Future: What We Know About Gen Z So Far." 2020, from https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/essay/on-the-cusp-of-adulthood-and-facing-an- uncertain-future-what-we-know-about-gen-z-so-far/.

Parrott, G., et al. (2015). "Online behaviour of luxury fashion brand advocates." Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management.

Pentina, I., et al. (2018). "Exploring social media engagement behaviors in the context of luxury brands." Journal of Advertising 47(1): 55-69.

Phillips-Melancon, J. and V. Dalakas (2014). "Brand rivalry and consumers’ Schadenfreude: The case of Apple." Services Marketing Quarterly 35(2): 173-186.

PMX Agency (2019). PMX agency's trend report: Luxury brands online.

Pongsakornrungsilp, S. and J. E. Schroeder (2011). "Understanding value co-creation in a co-consuming brand community." Marketing Theory 11(3): 303-324.

Popp, B., et al. (2016). "We love to hate them! Social media-based anti-brand communities in professional football." International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship 17(4): 349-367.

Rim, H., et al. (2020). "Polarized public opinion responding to corporate social advocacy: Social network analysis of boycotters and advocators." Public Relations Review 46(2): 101869.

Rindell, A., et al. (2014). "Ethical consumers' brand avoidance." Journal of Product & Brand Management.

Rival IQ (2019). "Live Social Media Benchmarks for Designer Brands." Retrieved 22 Apr, 2020, from https://www.rivaliq.com/live-benchmarks/designer-brands/.

Rodrigues, C. and P. Rodrigues (2019). "Brand love matters to Millennials: the relevance of mystery, sensuality and intimacy to neo-luxury brands." Journal of Product & Brand Management.

Rogers, A., et al. (2017). "Examining the existence of double jeopardy and negative double jeopardy within Twitter." European Journal of Marketing.

Romani, S., et al. (2013). "My anger is your gain, my contempt your loss: Explaining consumer responses to corporate wrongdoing." Psychology & Marketing 30(12): 1029-1042.

Romani, S., et al. (2012). "Emotions that drive consumers away from brands: Measuring negative emotions toward brands and their behavioral effects." International journal of research in marketing 29(1): 55-67.

Romani, S., et al. (2015). "The revenge of the consumer! How brand moral violations lead to consumer anti-brand activism." Journal of Brand Management 22(8): 658-672.

Salinger, S., et al. (2008). "A coding scheme development methodology using grounded theory for qualitative analysis of pair programming." Human Technology: An Interdisciplinary Journal on Humans in ICT Environments.

Sandıkcı, Ö. and A. Ekici (2009). "Politically motivated brand rejection." Journal of Business research 62(2): 208-217.

Schivinski, B., et al. (2016). "Measuring consumers' engagement with brand-related social- media content: Development and validation of a scale that identifies levels of social-media engagement with brands." Journal of advertising research 56(1): 64-80.

Shetty, A. S., et al. (2019). "Brand activism and millennials: an empirical investigation into the perception of millennials towards brand activism." Problems and Perspectives in Management 17(4): 163.

Shirdastian, H., et al. (2019). "Using big data analytics to study brand authenticity sentiments: The case of Starbucks on Twitter." International Journal of Information Management 48: 291-307.

Sicilia, M. and M. Palazón (2008). "Brand communities on the internet: A case study of Coca- Cola's Spanish virtual community." Corporate Communications: An International Journal 13(3): 255-270.

Sprott, D., et al. (2009). "The importance of a general measure of brand engagement on market behavior: Development and validation of a scale." Journal of marketing research 46(1): 92-104.

Statista (2020d). "Number of monthly active Twitter users worldwide from 1st quarter 2010 to 1st quarter 2019." Retrieved Sep, 5, 2020, from https://www.statista.com/statistics/282087/number-of-monthly-active-twitter-users/.

Statista (, 2020). "Distribution of Twitter users worldwide as of July 2020, by age group." 2020, from https://www.statista.com/statistics/283119/age-distribution-of-global-twitter- users/.

Sternberg, R. J. (2003). "A duplex theory of hate: Development and application to terrorism, massacres, and genocide." Review of General Psychology 7(3): 299-328.

Sternberg, R. J. (2005). "Understanding and Combating Hate."

Truong, Y., et al. (2009). "New luxury brand positioning and the emergence of masstige brands." Journal of Brand Management 16(5-6): 375-382.

Uhlig, M. R. H., et al. (2020). "Corporate social responsibility and consumer's relationship intention." Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 27(1): 313-324.

Van Doorn, J., et al. (2010). "Customer engagement behavior: Theoretical foundations and research directions." Journal of service research 13(3): 253-266.

Veloutsou, C. and F. Guzman (2017). "The evolution of brand management thinking over the last 25 years as recorded in the Journal of Product and Brand Management." Journal of Product & Brand Management 26(1): 2-12.

Vernuccio, M., et al. (2015). "Antecedents of brand love in online network-based communities. A social identity perspective." Journal of Product & Brand Management 24(7): 706-719.

Waqas, M., et al. (2020). "A typology of customer experience with social media branded content: a netnographic study." International Journal of Internet Marketing and Advertising 14(2): 184-213.

Wiedmann, K. P., et al. (2009). "Value‐based segmentation of luxury consumption behavior." Psychology & Marketing 26(7): 625-651.

Wolter, J. S., et al. (2016). "Symbolic drivers of consumer–brand identification and disidentification." Journal of Business research 69(2): 785-793.

Wu, J., et al. (2018). "Why do consumers hate brands? A conceptual paper of the determinants of brand hate." of Business Economics, Management and Marketing 2018: 232.

Yang, J. and K. Basile (, 2019). "The impact of corporate social responsibility on brand equity. ." Marketing Intelligence & Planning.

YPulse (2018). "The Top 10 Luxury Brands Millennials & Gen Z Most Want To Own." from https://www.ypulse.com/article/2018/01/16/the-10-luxury-brands-millennials-most- want-to-own/.

YPulse (2020). "Cancel Culture: An Explainer for Brands." Retrieved 6 Sep, 2020, from https://www.ypulse.com/article/2020/07/09/cancel-culture-an-explainer-for-brands/.

Yuksel, U., et al. (2020). "Boycott them! No, boycott this! Do choice overload and small‐ agent rationalization inhibit the signing of anti‐consumption petitions?" Psychology & Marketing 37(2): 340-354.

Zarantonello, L., et al. (2016). "Brand hate." Journal of Product & Brand Management 25(1): 11-25.

Zarantonello, L., et al. (2018). "Trajectories of brand hate." Journal of Brand Management 25(6): 549-560.

Attachments

Annex I: Top Ranked Luxury Brands Valuation

Table 7: Top ranked luxury brand valuation Brand Rank Growth Brand Value Performing factors Consistency (Global) rate (billion) Rank Rank Rank Rank Internal External Overall (2018) (2017) (2016) (2015) Louis Commitment 17 $32.223 14% Consistency 18º 19º 19º 20º High Vuitton Responsiveness Engagement Chanel 22 $22.134 11% Clarity 23º - - - Low Authenticity Clarity Hermès 28 $17.92 9% Authenticity 32º 32º 34º 41º High Commitment Commitment Gucci 33 $15.949 23% Relevance 39º 51º 53º 50º High Responsiveness

Authenticity Cartier 68 $8.192 7% Clarity 67º 65º 62º 57º High Consistency Relevance Dior 82 $6.045 16% Commitment 82º 91º 95º 89º High Differentiation Relevance Tiffany 94 $5.335 -5% Differentiation 94º 83º 81º 74º High & Co. - Engagement Commitment Burberry 96 $5.205 4% Engagement 96º 94º 86º 83º High Responsiveness Prada Differentiation 100 $4.781 -1% Commitment 100º 95º 94º 81º High Authenticity

Source: Own elaboration. Data retrieved from: Interbrand (2019)

Annex II: The 15 Most Popular Luxury Brands Online In 2019

Table 8: The 15 most popular luxury brands online in 2019 Rank Brand Share of Web Social Media Social Media Search Traffic Audience Engagement Interest 1 Gucci 22.34% 9,440,000 54,144,179 13,600,000

2 Chanel 11.79% 4,270,000 67,499,041 2,591,803

3 Louis 9.67% 7,700,000 58,886,821 7,400,000 Vuitton 4 Hermès 9.29% 1,770,000 10,356,812 1,380,000

5 Rolex 8.03% 4,530,000 15,813,354 438,000

6 Tiffany 7.69% 2,130,000 20,874,200 801,000

7 Dior 5.62% 2,910,000 48,306,113 6,290,000

8 Armani 5.47% 1,990,000 24,685,216 974,000

9 Prada 4.97% 1,530,000 23,934,422 2,186,210

10 Balenciaga 4.39% 2,180,000 9,158,109 1,696,459

11 Cartier 3.63% 1,280,000 12,279,311 314,015

12 Burberry 3.62% 2,790,000 43,329,468 1,485,372

13 Lancôme 1.90% 107,070 13,290,575 338,781

14 Yves Saint 0.89% 1,760,000 11,825,457 804,593 Laurent 15 Bulgari 0.70% 1,200,000 11,277,114 696,071

Source: (Luxe Digital 2019)

Definitions: Share of search interest is calculated based on worldwide Google Trends data. We measure the absolute search interest for each of the top luxury brands during the period, and then

calculate how much attention they receive compared to the other brands in our ranking as a percentage of the total search interest for luxury brands. Website traffic is estimated based on SimilarWeb data, using the primary brand domain. Social media audience is calculated based on Rival IQ reports for each brand as of March 2020. It represents the sum of Facebook Fans, Instagram Followers, Twitter Followers, and YouTube Subscribers. Social media engagement is calculated based on Rival IQ reports for each brand as of March 2020. It represents the total number of engagement actions across all tracked social channels, combining comments, likes and shares.

Annex III: Luxury Brands Valuation

Table 9: Luxury brands valuation Rank Brand Value Engagement Brand Consistency (Global) (Billion $) Rate Louis Vuitton 17º 32.223 High 0.07% Chanel 22º 22.134 Low 0.12% Hermès 28º 17.92 High 0.25% Gucci 33º 15.949 High 0.13% Dior 82º 6.045 High 0.20% Burberry 96º 5.205 High 0.13% Prada 100º 4.781 High 0.14%

Source: (PMX Agency 2019, Rival IQ 2019, Interbrand, 2019)

Annex V: Top Luxury Brands: Online Market Share

Table 10: Top luxury brands: online market share

Website Visit Share Michael Kors 23.60% Ralph Lauren 21.84% Coach 18.06% Louis Vuitton 9.25% Gucci 6.10% Chanel 5.23% Dior 1.79% Hermès 1.67% Salvator Ferragamo 1.62% Christian Louboutin 1.46% Yves Saint Laurent 1.37% Versace 1.36% Prada 1.32% Tom Ford 1.29% Marc Jacobs 1.01% Giorgio Armani 0.99% Burberry 0.86% Jimmy Choo 0.66% Dolce & Gabana 0.53% Source: (Hitewise 2017)

Annex VII: Distribution of Twitter Users Worldwide

Graphic 1: Distribution of Twitter users worldwide as July 2020, by age group Twitter 35,00%

30,00%

25,00%

20,00% Twitter 15,00%

10,00%

5,00%

0,00% Aged 13-17 Aged 18-24 Aged 25-34 Aged 35-49 Aged 50+

Source: (Statista, 2020)

DE FACULDADE

ECONOMIA