1. IMPERIAL COLLEGE OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND MEDICINE
Imperial College Business School
WHEN CUSTOMER-BRAND RELATIONSHIPS TURN NEGATIVE:
ANTECEDENTS AND OUTCOMES
by
TERRENCE THONG, LADIPO AKONI, HUGH JARMAN, GLADYS TAN, GARETH
NAYLOR, PRATHAP LATCHMANAN
A report submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for
Joint Honours degree
May 2012

2. Table
of
Contents
Executive Summary...................................................................................................5
Group Dynamics ........................................................................................................6
Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................7
1. Introduction............................................................................................................8
........................................................................................................1.1 Antecedents 9
...........................................................1.2 Negative Customer-Brand Relationships 9
.........................................................................................................1.3 Outcomes 10
.....................................................................1.4 Target Industries and Customers 10
2. Literature Review.................................................................................................13
........................................2.1 Importance of Brand Attachment and Brand Loyalty 13
...........2.2 Negative Customer-Brand Relationships and Associated Antecedents 15
.....................................................................2.2.1. Dissolution and Detachment 15
.............................................................2.2.2. Resistance and Brand Avoidance 19
.............................................................................................2.2.3. Brand Dislike 20
........................................................................................2.2.4. Brand Rejection 21
.......................................................................................2.3 Research Proposition 23
.......................................................................2.3.1. Reconciliation of Concepts 23
..........................................................................2.3.2. Industry-Specific Studies 27
2.3.3. Students as Customers 28
............................2.4 Consequences of Negative Customer-Brand Relationships 29
......................................................................................2.5 The Role of the Media 31
.......................................................2.5.1. Shift from Traditional to Social Media 31
......................................................................2.5.2. The Influence of the Media 31
2.5.3. Electronic Word-of-Mouth (eWOM) 33
3. Aims and Objectives ...........................................................................................36
....................................................................................3.1 Conceptual Framework 36
......................................................................................................3.2 Hypotheses 37
4. Methodology ........................................................................................................44
5. Results..................................................................................................................52
Page 2 of 195

3. ....................................................................................5.1 Results from Interviews 52
......................................................................5.1.1. Brand Employee Interviews 53
.........................................................................................5.1.2. User Interviews 55
................................................................................5.1.3. Academic Interviews 56
.................................................................................................5.2 Survey Results 61
..........................................................................5.2.1. Results within Industries 62
.........................................................................5.2.2. Results across Industries 65
.....................................................5.2.3. Negative Scores Across All Industries 71
6. Discussion............................................................................................................73
............................................................................................6.1 Analysis of Drivers 73
.........................................................................................6.1.1. Product Quality 73
.........................................................................................6.1.2. Service Quality 75
.............................................................................................6.1.3. Brand Image 78
........................................................................................6.1.4. Social Influence 80
..........................................................................6.1.5. Alternatives/Competition 82
..........................................................6.1.6. Relevance to Aims and Objectives 82
..........................................................................................6.2 Analysis of Surveys 84
..................................................................................6.2.1. Food and Beverage 84
..............................................................................6.2.2. Consumer Electronics 90
.................................................................................6.2.3. Telecommunications 94
.........................................................................................6.3 Recommendations 101
................................................................................6.3.1. Food and Beverage 101
............................................................................6.3.2. Consumer Electronics 103
6.3.3. Telecommunications 105
6.3.4. Addressing Badvocacy and Negative Voice Behaviour 106
......................................................................................................6.4 Limitations 110
...............................................................................................6.4.1. Interviews 110
...................................................................................................6.4.2. Surveys 111
......................................................................................................6.4.3. Media 113
7. Conclusion..........................................................................................................114
.............................................................................7.1 Summary and Implications 114
....................................................................................................7.2 Future Work 116
References..............................................................................................................118
Appendices ............................................................................................................128
.............................................................Appendix A – Interviews with Students 129
Page 3 of 195

4. .............................................Appendix B – Interviews with Brand Employees 145
........................................................Appendix C – Interviews with Academics 160
..........................................................................Appendix D – Survey Results 190
Appendix E – Interview Consent Form 196
Word count: 24,984 (excluding Table of Contents, Acknowledgements, References
and Appendices).
Page 4 of 195

5. Executive
Summary
The importance of developing and maintaining positive customer-brand relationships
towards a company’s increased financial performance have been espoused by
academics. However, such relationships can turn negative at any time due to a
variety of reasons, which can, in turn, result in a wide range of outcomes.
The research aims to identify the key drivers that cause negative customer-brand
relationships, while also investigating the plausible consequences of such
interactions. Interviews were carried out with students, industry representatives and
academic experts, which in conjunction with literature research, enabled the
formulation of the drivers leading to negative customer-brand relationships.
Subsequently, a survey of students was carried out in order to analyse the drivers
and the outcomes that they generate. Using the collated results, three selected
industries were compared with the intent of providing recommendations on managing
or preventing the development of potential negative customer-brand relationships.
The results allowed for a detailed examination of the drivers, allowing the study to
determine the most influential drivers within each industry. Analysis of industry/
product characteristics allowed logical justifications of the reasons why students
behaved differently in each industry. This facilitated the formulation of industry-
specific recommendations based on the results.
A range of frameworks were developed to better understand and communicate the
findings from the research. These were developed from fundamental marketing
concepts and subsequently adapted to fit the scope of our research.
Page 5 of 195

6. Group
Dynamics
Our research team consisted of six Imperial College students from a diverse range of
cultural and national backgrounds. This provided the group with both a varied range
of skills and personal experiences, which proved invaluable in addressing the
behavioural aspects of our project. Throughout the course of the management year,
experiences between members within syndicate groups proved invaluable towards
establishing positive relationships, therefore allowing us to gain a prior appreciation
of each other’s working styles.
An informal leadership position was assigned within the group in order to ensure that
key deadlines and progress milestones were adhered to. Strengths of individual
group members were exploited by careful delegation of tasks, which included
conducting interviews, research presentation and writing. The group was often split
into sub-teams to address various components of the project. Everyone within the
team contributed equal amounts of time and effort towards the successful completion
of the project.
A positive and open environment was forged within the group, allowing all members
to be able to express their idea, opinions and concerns freely and objectively. When
disagreements arose, possible solutions were discussed within the group
environment, therefore minimising conflict whilst not comprising the overall project
performance.
Page 6 of 195

7. Acknowledgements
Spending the past 3 months working on this project has been challenging but we
would like to take this opportunity to express our gratitude for the positive influence of
many people over the course of the project. We have received assistance from many,
in different ways, all over the world, without which our project would not be what it is
today.
Firstly, we would like to thank the four academics who provided us with vital
information and personal experience on our study, Mr. Colin Love, Dr. Boris
Maciejovsky and Dr. Yuri Mishina of Imperial College London Business School and
Dr. Lee Yih Hwai of the National University of Singapore. We would also like to
acknowledge the contribution of Jillian McCall of Kraft Foods and the member of staff
at Starbucks (who did not want to be identified), for their insight into the brand view of
negative customer-brand relationships. The influence of the student population on
this research cannot be underestimated. We would like to extend our gratitude to all
those who took the time to complete our survey or participate in an interview.
We would like to save our final and greatest amount of thanks for our supervisor, Dr.
Andreas Eisingerich. Throughout our project Dr. Eisingerich has provided invaluable
guidance and advice at times when we needed it most. We are especially grateful for
the time he spent with us at the start of the project to provide us with helpful initial
direction. We hope that our work is able to contribute and build upon the present
work on negative customer-brand relationships whilst also providing an interesting
and enjoyable read.
Page 7 of 195

8. 1.
Introduction
In order to identify the antecedents and the outcomes of negative customer-brand
relationships, it is essential to define the relationship between the customer and the
brand. Fournier (1994) defined customer-brand relationships as encompassing three
key characteristics: 1) interdependence between partners; 2) interaction over time;
and 3) functional and/or emotional in nature. The first characteristic refers to the
reciprocal exchange between partners in the relationship while the second stipulates
that the interaction is not a one-off transaction but a series of repeated exchanges.
The last characteristic requires that partners are together for functional and
emotional benefits.
Marketing strategies are increasingly moving away from a focus on acquiring new
customers, to building relationships with existing customers (Peelen, 2005). There
are various reasons to cultivate positive customer-brand relationships, including
increased customer loyalty, reduced marketing efforts, greater profits and increased
brand equity. These have led to significant interest in the area, as evident in an
increase in relevant research activity (Blackston, 2000; Dowling, 2002; Reichheld,
1996; Winer, 2001).
Likewise, these relationships can also turn negative, bringing about significant
damaging effects on the brand. Yet, past research has focused mainly on positive
customer-brand relationships with those on negative relationships scant in
comparison (Lee, Conroy and Motion, 2009; Winchester and Romaniuk, 2003). This
work thus seeks to examine the antecedents and outcomes of customer-brand
relationships as in Figure 1.1, and also provide recommendations to prevent or
mitigate the damaging outcomes.
Page 8 of 195

9. 1. Antecedents
While the drivers for positive customer-brand relationships are relatively well
understood, drivers which cause customer-brand relationships to turn negative
require more investigation and understanding. Additionally, there is often more than
one driver resulting in negative customer-brand relationships and these drivers are of
different importance to different customers (Klein et al, 2004).
2. Negative Customer-Brand Relationships
It is difficult to identify the sources of negative sentiments towards a brand as the
perception of a brand can be influenced by both personal experiences and external
influences. In particular, consumers can be affected by external influences such as
through the spread of negative sentiments via word-of-mouth (WOM) and the internet
(Smith and Cooper-Martin, 1997). These can be very damaging for the brand,
especially if it results in consumer switching, boycotts (Klein et al, 2004), and outright
sabotage.
In today’s information society, traditional media has ventured into digital and online
channels. New social media platforms such as Facebook and YouTube have radically
changed the way people receive and send information. The increased dissemination
of customer-generated information has inevitably had an impact on how customer-
Page 9 of 195
Figure 1.1. A schematic depicting the antecedents and outcomes of negative customer-brand
relationships (Thong et al, 2012).
Antecedents
Negative
Customer-
Brand
Outcomes

10. brand relationships are managed. It is therefore vital that we look beyond the source
of the negative sentiments, to the way that it is communicated to
the customer to fully understand the phenomenon of negative customer-brand
relationships.
3. Outcomes
Negative customer-brand relationships can result in consequences such as damage
to brand reputation (Davies et al, 2003; Klein et al, 2004), brand equity (Dawar and
Pillutla, 2000) and marketing effectiveness (Van Heerde et al, 2007). These in turn
can have detrimental impacts on the financial performance and the share price of a
company.
4. Target Industries and Customers
A preliminary online survey conducted on university students in London revealed that
telecommunications, consumer electronics, as well as food and beverage (F&B)
were the top three industries that students were most concerned about (Thong et al,
2012). The results are shown in Figure 1.2. University students between the ages of
17-25 were selected as the target group for this study based on several reasons
(Thong et al, 2012):
1. Students are a highly attractive group of consumers in today’s markets due to
their size and buying power. This is a key consideration that firms should not
neglect. In addition, marketing academics in banking sectors have long
advocated the need for banks to ‘start early’ to attract these consumers in order
to foster greater customer loyalty (Fry et al, 1986; Mankila, 2001).
Page 10 of 195

11. 2%
61%
12%
Age Group of Survey Participants
17 or younger
18-20
21-29
30-39
40-60
*All participants of the survey are current students
2. Students exert substantial influence in many industries. In the case of the
telecommunications and consumer electronics, students are regarded to be
advanced users and opinion leaders (Antoine, 2004).
3. Young adults have different tastes and perceptions compared to the generational
market segments (Jurisic and Azevedo, 2010). Hence, studies on student-
consumer marketing behaviour would be highly interesting. Lazarevic and
Petrovic-Lazarevic (2007) have also described them as being ‘resistant to
marketing efforts’ and hence difficult to retain as loyal customers. This provides
us with yet another key reason to focus on students in the area of customer-
brand relationships.
Page 11 of 195
0 0.8 1.5 2.3 3.0
Rating Average
1.6
1.6
2.0
2.7
3.0
2.9
Defence
Pharmaceu7cal
Tourism
Consumer
Electronics
Telecommunica7on
Food
&
Beverage
Ranking of the most relevant industries to student consumers

12. 4. Finally, students were selected for this study due to practical reasons. Our direct
access to the student population would facilitate the conducting of surveys and
interviews with ease.
This study aims to understand the nature of negative customer-brand relationships
through examining the antecedents and outcomes, with the ultimate goal of providing
recommendations to industries to help prevent or mitigate the impact caused by the
drivers. Positive customer-brand relationships will be used as the theoretical starting
point for this study, and we further seek to examine several models of negative
brand-relationships and assess their potential relevance for the purpose of this study.
In addition, this study attempts to use conceptual frameworks to facilitate
explanations for the results of the research.
Page 12 of 195

13. 2.
Literature
Review
1. Importance of Brand Attachment and Brand Loyalty
A major challenge of this study was to isolate what constituted as drivers resulting in
negative customer-brand relationships; in this work, we adopt a broad view that
antecedents from negative customer-brand relationships are any factors which could
lead to an unfavourable change in the bond between the customer and the brand.
The most obvious would be the opposite of what leads to a positive association with
the brand (e.g. good service vs. bad service). Therefore while this research is
centred upon negative customer-brand relationships, the extant literature on brand
loyalty and positive customer-brand relationships is still relevant. These provide an
important starting point for understanding the relationships between consumers and
brands.
The issues of brand attachment and brand loyalty are of keen interest in marketing
research, and their importance towards increased financial performance has been
espoused by marketing academics and scholars (Park et al, 2010; Fajer and
Schouten, 1995; Reichheld and Sasser, 1990). Reichheld and Sasser (1990),
estimate that a 5% reduction in consumer defection could improve business profits
by 25-80%. Companies are now seeking out ways to form strong and sustainable
emotional brand connections with consumers in order to increase customer retention
and boost profitability (Aaker et al, 2004; Gustafsson et al, 2005).
Veloutsou (2007) suggested that the relationships people build with brands are
founded upon the characteristics of the brand, as well as the perceptions and
behaviour of consumers towards these characteristics. Other sources of literature
also propose that consumers are more likely to support and buy a brand when they
feel that the brand holds a desirable attitude towards the issues significant to them
(Malär et al, 2011; Kates, 2000). In addition, while products and services used to be
Page 13 of 195

14. consumed mainly for their utility, the symbolic meaning of a brand has now become
another important driver for consumption (Veloutsou and Moutinho, 2009). A brand’s
symbolic meaning is an integral component of its image, and congruence between
the consumer’s self and the brand image has been argued to be essential for the
development of brand attachment (Park et al, 2010; Aaker, 1999; Sirgy, 1982).
Indeed, the self-expansion theory developed by Aron and colleagues (2005) posits
that humans have a strong inherent motivation to grow and expand by the inclusion
of others into their self. This idea extends to brands in our context, and Malär et al
(2011) have suggested that the greater the degree to which a brand or its resources
is identified with the individual’s self, the greater the emotional attachment.
Also pertinent to this paper is the concept of customer experience, and the various
elements which influence the experience that customers have with the brand.
Current literature on this area of research strongly suggests that positive customer
experience gives rise to brand loyalty (Ismail et al 2011; Berry et al, 2002).
Page 14 of 195

15. 2. Negative Customer-Brand Relationships and Associated
Antecedents
Considering the numerous detriments to a company when relationships between the
consumer and the brand turn negative, particularly the devastating impact on the
bottom line (Prim-Allaz, 2000; Strandvik and Holmlund, 2000), it is perhaps surprising
that prior studies relating to customer-brand relationships in both academic and
commercial research have been predominantly focused on the aspects of positive
relationships (Lee, Conroy and Motion, 2009; Winchester and Romaniuk, 2003),
while those of negative relationships are limited in comparison.
In recent years there has been a rising interest in the domain of negative customer-
brand relationships, as evidenced by the growing number of academic articles,
dedicated to this broad area. Existing work includes examples such as research on
brand detachment and dissolution (e.g. Perrin-Martinenq, 2002 and 2004; Prim-Allaz,
2000; Strandvik and Holmlund, 2000; Fajer and Schouten, 1995), resistance and
brand avoidance (e.g. Izberk-Bilgin, 2010; Thompson, Rindfleisch and Arsel, 2006,
Banister and Hogg, 2004; Kozinets and Handelman, 2004), as well as brand dislike
(e.g. Dalli, Romani and Gistri, 2006; Kozinets, 2002; Wilk, 1997) and rejection (e.g.
Sandikci and Ekici, 2008). Table 2.1 shows some of the definitions of terms used by
the various authors to describe negative customer-brand relationships.
2.1. Dissolution and Detachment
Fajer and Schouten (1995) write that interpersonal relationships may end due to a
variety of reasons. Moreover, the final decision to end an interpersonal relationship is
mostly made after a process of careful consideration of the pros and cons of staying
compared to breaking up in light of available alternatives and obstacles in the
relationship (LeBel and Campbell, 2008; Edwards and Saunders, 1981; Thibaut and
Kelley, 1959). We can therefore discuss the negative turns in customer-brand
relationships in a similar manner.
Page 15 of 195

16. Duck (1982) argues that there are four stages in the interpersonal relationship
dissolution process which Fajer and Schouten (1995) have identified to be relevant to
customer-brand relationships, as shown in Figure 2.1.
1)
Breakdown
2)
Decline
3)
Disengageme
nt
4)
Dissolution
1. Breakdown refers to the attenuation of relationships as a result of intentional or
unintentional disruptions. In the context of customer-brand relationships, a
breakdown could result from unmet promises of brand performance, a switch in
customer likes and needs or the availability of superior products by competitors.
2. Decline refers to a deterioration of a relationship in terms of diminishing like and
intimacy for a partner. In the context of customer-brand relationships,
deterioration in customer-brand relationships could be a result of a reduction in
loyalty for a product.
3. Disengagement refers to the process of interpersonal communication and
behaviour that lead to a departure in the relationship. Customer disengagement
with a brand would include behaviour such as the spread of negative sentiments
about the brand, and the active search and establishment of new relationships
with other brands.
Page 16 of 195
Figure 2.1: Stages in interpersonal relationship dissolution (Duck, 1982).

17. 4. Dissolution refers to the final termination of the relationship through negotiations
or one-sided withdrawals. This could result in brand switching, spurning or
alienation.
Levenson and Gottman (1985) write that emotional detachment can be perceived as
the psychological stage that ultimately ‘paves the way’ for the dissolution of a
relationship. Emotional detachment is a technique that a person’s neurotic system
adopts in order to resolve internal conflict through the maintenance of emotional
distance towards others (Horney, 1937; 1945). Brand detachment can therefore also
be thought of as the step that precedes the termination of consumer-brand
relationships (Perrin-Martinenq, 2004). There has been a variety of arguments with
regard to brand detachment with Cohen (1967) describing detachment as being
indifferent while Perrin-Martinenq (2004) argues of indifference corresponding only to
extreme situations of detachment. Mai and Conti (2008) on the other hand refer to
rejection and indifference as both indicators of brand detachment. In addition, Fajer
and Schouten (1995) also build on Duck’s (1982) research to point out that there are
four latent causes of interpersonal relationship dissolution, which is also the case for
customer-brand relationships.
1. Pre-existing doom states that the lack of certain inherent features or the failure to
manifest them could result in dissatisfaction, resulting in the dissolution of a
relationship. This is the case whereby brands and customers are inherently
incompatible.
2. Mechanical failure happens when there is poor conduct in the relationship. An
example in the customer-brand relationship context would be when poor brand
quality and performance leads to customer dissatisfaction.
3. Process loss refers to situations where brand management strategies fail to
capture customer loyalty by being unable to keep up with changing customer
needs, causing customers to consider competing products.
Page 17 of 195

18. 4. Sudden death refers to the sudden, new and negative information that result in
the dissolution of a relationship. In the customer-brand relationship context, it
could refer to the discovery of corporate misconduct. Consider the backlash
against Nestlé’s marketing of infant-milk formula in Africa, where its promotion
over breastfeeding led to health problems and deaths among babies due to the
inadequate access to clean drinking water (Brunk, 2010; Holt et al, 2009).
Customers in the United Kingdom (UK) quickly boycotted Nestlé upon learning
about the matter, and this significantly hurt its UK sales.
Fournier (1994; 1998) also suggested an entropy model and a stress model to
explain relationship deterioration and dissolution. The entropy model states that
relationships would fail unless actively maintained. The stress model on the other
hand, explains that relationships can be ruined by external factors such as
environmental, partner-orientated and dyadic stresses.
1. Environmental stresses include changes in the physical situation such as the
geographical move to a location where the brand is unavailable. Environmental
stresses could also be caused by the availability of superior competitive offerings.
2. Partner-oriented stresses could be the result of changes in customer needs and
likes that affect customer-product fit. It could also be the result of a managerial
decision to change the brand’s target customers thus ending the customer-brand
relationship.
3. Dyadic stresses result when a partner in the relationship fails to keep a promise.
An example would be when a brand fails to deliver in terms of product quality or
service quality.
Page 18 of 195

19. 2.2. Resistance and Brand Avoidance
Lee, Conroy and Motion (2009) define brand avoidance as a situation whereby
customers intentionally choose to stay away from certain brands. They argue that
previous classifications of brand avoidance by Hogg and Michell (1997) and
Abougomaah, Schlater and Gaidis (1987) were overly simplistic. Like Fajer and
Schouten (1995) and Fournier (1994; 1998) they have also attempted to identify the
causes of the negative customer-brand relationship.
1. Experimental avoidance is the result of undelivered brand promises. The act of
branding inherently makes promises to customers (Balmer and Gray, 2003),
which then creates expectations (Gronroos, 2006). When brand promises are
delivered in line with customers’ expectations, repurchase is encouraged (Dall’
Olmo Riley and de Chernatony, 2000). However, when customers’ experiences
are different from what they expected the brand to deliver, it could result in
dissatisfaction and brand avoidance.
2. Identity avoidance occurs when brands make symbolically unappealing promises.
This happens when consumers view certain brands as inauthentic or undesirable
(Lee, Conroy and Motion, 2009). Some brands have values and stereotypes
attached to them that people do not want to be associated with. (Dalli, Romani
and Gistri, 2006; Lee, Conroy and Motion, 2009).
3. Moral avoidance happens when brands make socially detrimental promises (Lee,
Conroy and Motion, 2009). It could result when brands are iconic representations
of the country they come from, such as MacDonald’s, and when customers feel
animosity towards that country. Alternatively, moral avoidance could also happen
when there are anti-hegemony sentiments among consumers (Lee, Conroy and
Motion, 2009). Brand avoidance due to anti-hegemony sentiments is also
consistent with research on customer resistance; customers take on anti-
Page 19 of 195

20. consumerist behaviours such as boycotts, in response to brand domination
(Izberk-Bilgin, 2010 and Kozinets and Handelman, 2004). Thompson and Arsel
(2004) give a detailed account of this using the global coffee brand Starbucks. In
their paper they discuss how companies may face anti-corporate sentiments in
their efforts at global expansion because naysayers feel they outcompete local
businesses and in doing so may disrupt the inherent cultures. These supposed
predatory practices have led to what Holt (2002) terms an “anti-branding
movement” and usually focus on successful corporate entities.
4. Deficit-value avoidance occurs when brands make functionally inadequate
promises such that customers view them as having an unacceptable cost-to-
benefit trade-off (Lee, Conroy and Motion, 2009).
2.3. Brand Dislike
Brand dislike occurs when customers pass and express negative opinions on a
brand (Dalli et al, 2007). Dalli, Romani and Gistri (2006) characterised brand dislike
into three different levels and examined the various factors that contribute to those
levels of brand dislike.
1. At the product brand level, factors that contribute to brand dislike include an
unfair price to quality ratio and an ineffective customer service.
2. At the user brand level, brand dislike happens as the result of brand association
with stereotypes that users do not want to be associated with.
3. At the corporate brand level, brand dislike occurs when brands ‘misbehave’ by
pursuing activities that customers deem as unethical or illegal. For example,
views on ethics and morality are very subjective; therefore companies may face
difficulties in aligning their ethical views with that of their customers (Brunk,
2010).
Page 20 of 195

21. 2.4. Brand Rejection
Brand rejection refers to the refusal to buy or use a brand perpetually (Sandikci and
Ekici, 2008). It usually results in strong negative sentiments towards a brand and
could manifest in consumer actions such as boycotts and sabotages (Perrin-
Martinenq, 2002).
The extant literature on negative customer-brand relationships is however still
fragmented and incomprehensive, especially when contrasted with the copious
amount of research carried out on positive relationships. Dalli and colleagues (2006)
rationalise the asymmetry of focus by the fact that firms tend to pay more attention in
the “practical consequences of positive forms of knowledge”; in other words,
companies are more interested to know what consumers want and their disposition
to buy. However, as with the argument put forth by the same authors, we believe that
both negative and positive aspects must be considered in order to facilitate
understanding of purchase and consumption behaviours.
Page 21 of 195

22. Term Definition Author Year
Brand dissolution
Complete termination
of the relationship
Fajer and Schouten 1995
Brand
detachment
Decrease in affective
reactions towards the brand
Cohen 1967
Brand resistance
Anti-consumerist
behaviours towards a brand
Izberk-Dilgin 2010
Brand avoidance
Intentionally staying away
from the brand
Lee, Conroy and
Motion
2009
Brand dislike
Passing and expressing negative
opinions about a brand
Dalli, Romani and
Gistri
2006
Brand rejection
Refusal to buy or use
a brand indefinitely
Sandikci and Ekici 2008
Page 22 of 195
Table 2.1: Definitions of some terms used by authors to describe negative customer-
brand relationships

23. 3. Research Proposition
3.1. Reconciliation of Concepts
The differences in the negative relationship nomenclature as discussed in the
previous sections are the result of distinct research traditions and perspectives of the
various authors, and this general lack of a consensus could lead to misinterpretations
and ultimately confusion to the reader. This section therefore endeavours to unify the
disjoint classifications related to negative relationships proposed by the different
authors in the field, and integrate some of them into a single frame for a more
elegant and comprehensive understanding of the domain.
A closer look at the previous work published on negative customer-brand
relationships makes it possible to discern different levels of relationship deterioration
between that of the customer and the brand. Dalli and colleagues’ (2007) definition of
brand dislike, for instance, has a stronger negative connotation when compared to
Cohen’s (1967) or Perrin-Martinenq’s (2004) version of brand detachment. The
extent to which the relationship suffers is based on the perceptions, or more
specifically, the type and intensity of negative emotions that the consumer has
towards the brand. These are in turn determined by a plethora of contributing factors
or antecedents, which will be further investigated in this work. It is interesting to note
that only very recently has there been an empirical exploration into such negative
emotions. Romani, Grappi and Dalli (2012) identified six specific negative brand-
related emotions – dislike, anger, worry, sadness, embarrassment and discontent –
which they proposed could reveal “particular behavioural outcomes such as
switching, complaining and negative word-of-mouth”.
The different levels in the customer-brand relationship are indicative of how positive
or negative the relationship is. These levels are not dichotomous; as with feelings
and emotions, they exist instead as a continuum from one extreme to the other. In
light of this, we have devised a spectrum of such levels to clearly illustrate both the
Page 23 of 195

24. extent of negativity and the corresponding nature of deterioration in the customer-
brand relationship. This is shown in Figure 2.2 below. We further propose that the
extent of damage the company could potentially incur is reflective of the consumers’
intensifying displeasure and ill-will towards the brand as we move along the
spectrum.
Three key points on the relationship level spectrum have been established as
reference levels. With reference to Figure 2.2, fanaticism is situated on the extreme
of the positive end of the spectrum and is described by characteristics associated
with “extraordinary devotion” to the brand (Chung et al, 2008). Such behaviour is
consistent with that of an extreme consumer – fiercely loyal customers who strongly
identify with the brand and add value to it. Extreme consumers are also quick to
defend the brand against perceived attacks from the media, other companies or
another individual (Eisingerich, Bhardwaj and Miyamoto, 2010).
On the other extreme is the saboteur, a highly dissatisfied customer who engages in
acts of purposeful sabotage. Such acts include proactive generation of negative
sentiments about a brand and can be extremely damaging to the firm, prompting PR
firm Weber Shandwick to give the name “badvocates” to these individuals
(Lowenstein, 2011; Weber Shandwick, 2009). Exactly between the two extremes lies
the neutral zone whereby a customer feels neither a positive nor a negative attitude
Page 24 of 195
Figure 2.2: Proposed model representing the spectrum of the level of the consumer’s
relationship with the brand and the different types of deterioration in the relationship.

25. with regard to the customer-brand relationship. This could be due to one of two
reasons: (i) indifference, which is a truly neutral position; or (ii) ambivalence, in which
case the customer exhibits neutrality as a result of the unwillingness or inability to
make tradeoffs owing to conflict between positive and negative aspects (Krosnick,
2002; Nowlis, Khan and Dhar, 2002).
This study is directly concerned with customer-brand relationships that turn negative,
which we define as any decrease in positivity or the increase in negativity in a
customer-brand relationship. This idea is represented visually in Figure 2.2 by the red
arrow. We also distinguish between two main forms of relationship deterioration
pathways from definitions by various authors in the extant literature. Our view on
brand detachment is, to an extent, consistent with Cohen’s (1967) definition as a
“decrease or disappearance of affective reactions towards the brand”, which
ultimately leads to indifference. However, we make an important distinction here that
brand detachment does not necessarily have to result in indifference; rather,
indifference is seen as an extreme outcome of detachment (Perrin-Martinenq, 2002;
2004). The definition of brand detachment in this work can therefore be described
conceptually as the shift from any positive region of the spectrum up until the point of
indifference (indicated by the blue dot) as shown in Figure 2.2. The dark blue arrow
serves to represent the decline in affective reactions towards the brand, and thus any
movement along this arrow, however small, can be considered as brand detachment.
Our definition of brand rejection is based upon that of Sandıkcı and Ekici (2009). In
their work relating to politically motivated brand rejection, the authors describe it as
the refusal to consume resources of a brand because of its “perceived association to
a particular political ideology that the consumer is opposed to”. For the purpose
broadening the definition from its political scope, we expand on this concept to
encompass an association of the brand with generally anything undesirable that
results in the consumer’s rejection. In Figure 2.2, we label brand rejection as the
progression (or regression) of the customer-brand relationship from the positive
Page 25 of 195

26. extreme of fanaticism to negative extreme of sabotage and intense dislike. Our
concept of brand rejection thus holds a more dynamic quality in relation to that of
Sandıkcı and Ekici, and corresponds to the accumulation of negative attitudes or
emotions towards the brand that could eventually lead to a consumer’s detest for the
brand. This form of deterioration in customer-brand relationships is the primary focus
of this paper. Our goal is to explore this area more extensively in order to identify and
understand the contributing factors that lead to such a decline in the customer-brand
relationship, as well as the concomitant consequences.
We further suggest that brand rejection can be thought of as two broad stages: The
first stage is described by the shift from a positive to a neutral relationship. While this
phase appears to be similar to the construct of brand detachment discussed earlier,
we make a clear distinction in that while the neutral position in brand detachment
refers to the point of indifference, that same position in brand rejection is an attitude
of ambivalence. That is, the consumer with an initially positive attitude towards the
brand starts to receive an increasing amount of negative thoughts that begin to cloud
the consumer’s judgement by creating disagreement to the existing positive attitudes.
This reaches a point where the level of negativity is of adequate significance that the
customer is in a state of internal conflict, and the relationship is strained to the point
where the customer cannot decide accurately if his emotions towards the brand are
overall positive or negative (Nowlis, Khan and Dhar, 2002).
The second stage of brand rejection depicts a more advanced worsening of the
customer-brand relationship. From an attitude of ambivalence, the customer starts to
experience higher levels of negative emotions and his overall attitude towards the
brand becomes increasingly unfavourable. Ultimately, this could result in the
customer developing an intense dislike for the brand, and an inclination to detract
others from it. The likelihood of this extreme scenario happening as well as the
degree of brand rejection that transpires will depend very much on both internal
Page 26 of 195

27. factors (e.g. the customer’s personality) and external circumstances that this work
seeks to investigate.
3.2. Industry-Specific Studies
The research available on industry-specific antecedents of negative customer-brand
relationships is considerably limited, especially in the context of the particular
industries chosen in this paper. Mai and Conti (2008) have conducted empirical
studies in the form of surveys on a range of industries, with ‘Technology’ and “Food
and Beverages’ being of direct relevance to us. Their research was, however, solely
focused on brand detachment, and the main reason for the study across various
industries was to help inject variety in order to provide a fairer analysis. Thus, little
attention was paid to the significance of drivers in each individual industry. Although
Halinen-Kaila and Tahtinen (2000) identified several industry specific studies in their
extensive literature research on the ending of relationships, the majority of these
were in the business-to-business (B2B) environment. Business-to-consumer (B2C)-
centric exploration either did not specify an industry (e.g. Keaveney, 1995; Stewart,
1998a), which was more often the case, or were heavily concentrated on the finance
sectors (e.g. Garland, 2002; Stewart, 1998b; Colgate, Stewart and Kinsella, 1996;
Perrien, Lalonde and Filatrault, 1994). The industry bias in the latter case can
probably be reasoned by the existence of a dedicated marketing journal in the
banking industry (International Journal of Bank Marketing).
In addition, as can be seen in the earlier review of the literature of negative
customer-brand relationships, such as the work of Lee, Conroy and Motion (2009),
Fajer and Schouten (1995) and Susan Fournier (1994; 1998), the tendency to focus
on highly generic drivers that pertain to almost all types of business environments is
apparent. Likewise, the explored outcomes of the relationships that turn negative
have also been relatively general, arguably due to the nonspecific nature of the
theoretical analysis. In order to truly benefit from such research, however, the
findings and conceptual understanding gained must be applied to a much more
Page 27 of 195

28. specific context. Antecedents of a turn towards negative customer-brand
relationships pertinent to each industry may then be isolated and better understood
in order for managerial implications to be elucidated. Then, drawing from these,
preventive measures and solutions to remedy the undesirable outcomes could
perhaps be recommended. This work seeks to focus on the three chosen industries –
Telecommunications, F&B and Consumer Electronics – in an attempt to contribute
more effectively to the field of negative customer-brand relationships.
3.3. Students as Customers
The vast majority of student-based market research has been associated with the
education sector (Serenko, 2011; Haire and White, 2004; Delucchi and Korgen,
2002; Browne et al, 1998). Outside of the education context, the extant literature
again exhibits a marked bias towards the banking and finance sectors (Narteh and
Owusu-Frimpong, 2011; Mankila, 2004; Colgate, Stewart and Kinsella, 1996).
Students have been recognised in the banking industry as being a very important
segment of consumers, because of their future profitability (Fry et al, 1986; Lewis
and Bingham, 1991; Mankila, 2001). It comes across as surprising, therefore, that
this very reason has not engendered a similar interest in other sectors in which
students are particularly active and concerned about. To the best of the group’s
knowledge, the only exception is the recent attention on the student consumer group
in the area of online shopping (Yoo, Lee and Hoffmann, 2008; Lee and Lin, 2005; Xu
and Paulins, 2005). Research in this area is, however, still incomprehensive and
scant.
4. Consequences of Negative Customer-Brand
Relationships
Dissatisfaction in interpersonal (Rusbult, Zembrodt, and Gunn, 1982) and customer-
brand relationships both give rise to a rather expected set of behavioural responses
(Fajer and Shouten, 1995). Some of these outcomes can turn a brand from a being a
market asset into a market liability, decreasing a company’s effectiveness and
Page 28 of 195

29. efficiency (Lee, Conroy and Motion, 2009). A company in possession of a negative-
equity brand could therefore face the consequences of customer churn, decreased
profits and an unfavourable impression among customers and their social groups
(Ismail et al, 2011). Hence, it is important to identify these outcomes to initiate
recovery efforts or pre-empt them.
Fajer and Shouten (1995) adapted Rusbult, Zembrodt and Gunn’s (1982) model of
predicted behaviours following a negative turn in a relationship, to predict customer
behaviour:
1. Loyalty refers to when the customer stays in the relationship in hope of an
improvement.
2. Voice is when customers actively communicate their dissatisfaction to the brand
(positive voice) or to third parties (negative voice) with the aim to improve the
situation.
3. Neglect is the failure to maintain the relationship. In the context of customer-
brand relationships, this could mean a decrease in the usage of a brand and/or
the active search for alternatives.
4. Exit refers to the permanent and final dissolution of the customer-brand
relationship.
While this model accurately describes possible outcomes from a negative turn in
customer-brand relationships, we have found it to be dated and lacking in the
consideration of the extreme behavioural responses of a ‘badvocate’ with the help of
the new media. Hence, it would be essential to reclassify and reviews these
behavioural responses in response to the results of more recent work in consumer
psychology.
Page 29 of 195

30. 5. The Role of the Media
5.1. Shift from Traditional to Social Media
The Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (2012) describes the media as “the main
ways that large numbers of people receive information and entertainment, which is
the television, radio, newspapers and the Internet”.
We exist in an information society and the increasingly popular nature of new media
forms such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube means that the way people receive
and send information is radically different to what it was ten years ago. Hennig-
Thurau et al (2010) describe new media as digital communication channels through
which people can receive information in real time and in varying locations.
Today’s customers no longer have to be passive receivers of information from
companies and the press, but are now actively involved in the creation and sharing of
information. Consequently, firms do not have complete control over the way their
brands are perceived by their customers (Hennig-Thurau et al, 2010). This view
seems to be shared by David Gelles (2012) of the Financial Times, where he states:
“Perhaps the largest shift in recent years has been the transition from the one-way,
broadcast messaging of television, print and outdoor, to the two-way conversation
that social options now allow companies to have with their consumers.”
5.2. The Influence of the Media
Popular wisdom suggests that “any publicity is good publicity” and some studies
have shown this to be the case (Ahluwalia et al, 2000; Berger et al, 2010), however
other sources of research provide useful insight on the undesirable effects of the
negative press (Huang & Chen, 2000). There is a body of literature on the how
negative media publicity impacts outcomes such as sales and consumer demand.
(Ahluwalia et al, 2000; Berger et al, 2010; Eliashberg & Shugan, 1997).
Page 30 of 195

31. Richins and Root-Shaffer (1988) showed that word-of-mouth (WOM) has a major
influence on the buying decisions of consumers, especially since consumers regard
WOM as being more trustworthy than non-WOM sources (Chatterjee, 2001;
Bambauer-Sachse & Mangold, 2011). Hennig-Thurau et al (2004) built upon this and
described electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) as the sharing of information between
consumers on online and telecommunication platforms. Therefore, we propose that
the media can influence the buying decisions of customers and customer-brand
relationships through WOM and eWOM.
Gruen et al (2006) suggested that WOM and eWOM have similar effects on
consumers and define positive WOM as consumers recommending a product or
service to others. Based on this, we define negative WOM as when customers
express dissatisfaction about a product or service to others. The way a brand is
perceived by customers can depend on the interaction of those customers with other
customers of the firm (Gruen et al, 2006), lending greater weight to the importance of
WOM in shaping customer-brand relationships.
Recent qualitative work from Luo (2009) showed a correlation between negative
WOM and a detrimental long-term impact on the financial performance (i.e. cash flow
and stock prices) of companies. Although this does not directly link negative WOM to
deteriorating customer brand-relationships, it would not be unreasonable to suggest
that negative WOM worsened customer-brand relationships which then showed in
the detrimental long-term financial performance of the companies involved.
Page 31 of 195

32. 5.3. Electronic Word-of-Mouth (eWOM)
The rapid global rise of eWOM communication has led to it becoming a major theme
in current literature about social media. However, most of the research focuses on
the effects of the media and WOM related to company products and the pre-
purchase, purchase and post-purchase experience of customers, not necessarily the
company values. We are of the opinion that customer-brand relationships are not just
affected by the products and services of companies, but also by their values.
The media’s role in the propagation of negative news is four times as great as that of
positive news (Kroloff, 1988; Ahluwalia et al, 2000). This, coupled with the fact that
negative information attracts greater attention than positive information (Fiske, 1980;
Ahluwalia et al, 2000), suggests that negative information and publicity has a
significant impact on consumer behaviour. Therefore we propose that the media
serves as a platform through which negative WOM and negative eWOM can worsen
customer-brand relationships. Bambauer-Sachse (2011) provides evidence that
negative eWOM such as on online opinion platforms, negatively affects brand equity
and seemingly supports our view.
Social media-marketing can however be a double-edged sword. McDonalds
marketing campaign on Twitter. McDonalds wanted to highlight the positive
Page 32 of 195
Media with
negative news
Negative WOM/
eWOM
Negative customer-brand relationships

33. experiences of customers; however, this was soon hijacked by dissatisfied customers
voicing their poor experiences (Bradshaw & Rappeport, 2012). In this circumstance
the media was used to spread negative WOM and negative eWOM.
Park and Lee (2009) compared eWOM effects for search goods, where all necessary
information is available prior to purchase (Nelson, 1974) to that of experience goods,
where information about goods is not fully available and the search efforts may be
more expensive than the cost of the experience (Klein, 1998). Adding this to the
observations of Bone (1995), who states that in situations of ambiguous information
WOM may have greater effects, Park and Lee (2009) observed that eWOM is more
effective for experience goods compared to search goods because of the tendency
of people to utilise eWOM as a way of reducing their uncertainty about products.
Further investigation revealed that eWOM has a higher impact on experience as
opposed to search goods, possibly because negative eWOM in particular amplifies
the uncertainty associated with experience goods (Park & Lee, 2009).
Park and Lee (2009) hypothesised that negative eWOM will have a greater effect
than positive eWOM because prior research revealed that in comparison to positive
information; negative information attracts greater scrutiny (Homer & Yoon, 1992).
Therefore it is conceivable that the media may play a significant role in the spread of
negative eWOM and may influence the perceptions and hence the relationship that
customers may have with brands. This view is illustrated by Figure 2.4 above.
Page 33 of 195
Figure 2.3: Schematic of the effects of the media and WOM in catalysing negative
customer-brand relationships

34. 3.
Aims
and
Objectives
3.1. Conceptual Framework
The literature review provides us with a basis for understanding negative customer-
brand relationships, with which our conceptual framework can be constructed. The
proposed model shown in Figure 3.1 below is built upon the premises of the four
main hypotheses which will be discussed in this section, and depicts the direct
causal relation between negative customer-brand relationships and the associated
drivers. The framework also highlights how the media and the individual behaviours
of consumers can exacerbate this effect. In addition, the variety of outcomes that
could result from the negative relationships is also illustrated.
Page 34 of 195
Figure 3.1: Proposed conceptual model of the antecedents and outcomes of negative customer-
brand relationships. The drivers have been given generic labels, and one of the key objectives of
this research is to identify them in the context of the selected industries. Crucially, the model also
shows that the media and individual consumer behaviour serves as a catalyst and magnifies the
effect of each driver.

35. 3.2. Hypotheses
The aims and objectives of this work can be summarised as follows:
1. To identify drivers behind negative customer-brand relationships and to
examine their consequences in each of the selected industries.
2. To identify lead drivers in each industry and the trends in the drivers across
different industries.
3. To identify the role of the media in catalysing and exacerbating the negative
response of affected customers.
4. To provide recommendations to brands on how to minimise or remove
negative influences on their relationships with customers.
1. To identify drivers behind negative customer-brand relationships and to examine
their consequences in each of the selected industries
The general driving forces of negative customer-brand relationships have been the
focus of a number of marketing scholars (Lee, Conroy and Motion, 2009; Fajer and
Schouten, 1995; Fournier 1994; 1998). These could come in several forms: The fall
of Kodak (Naughton, 2012) or the troubles faced currently by Sony (Tobak, 2012)
could be attributed to process loss, where the firms were unable to keep up with
consumer needs (Fajer and Schouten 1995; Duck, 1982). Brand misconduct,
wherein a company acts in a manner that severely tarnishes their brand image
(Huber et al, 2009), constitutes another antecedent. Research in Motion’s (RIM)
network crash in 2011 caused much distress for their customers, and the
consequences were especially dire because they were already losing market share
due to the stiff competition put up by rivals such as Apple and Android (Cellan-Jones,
2012). Consider also the impact of social influence, in situations where disgruntled
customers communicate their dissatisfaction to others. Fajer and Schouten (1995)
describe this as ‘negative voice’; while also an outcome of negative customer-brand
Page 35 of 195

36. relationships, the authors recognise how this could affect the current relationship of
existing customers with the brand.
These drivers are also subject to interpretation by the customer, and the outcome of
which depends, to some extent, on his or her individual characteristics and
behaviour. These include cultural values (Laufer and Coombs, 2006), commitment
(Ahluwalia et al, 2000), ethics (Schmalz, 2008) and expectations (Dawar and Pillutla,
2000). The effect of these drivers may also be affected by the impressions gained of
the company through the media, word of mouth, and via interactions with the
company. The accentuating effect of the media and individual customer behaviour on
the drivers is shown in Figure 3.1.
We hypothesise that there are many such drivers in the context of our three selected
industries, and the first main objective of this project is to isolate, identify and
rationalise the key antecedents of negative customer-brand relationships as
perceived by the student population. We also seek to examine how the customers
interpreted these drivers and how they led to the different outcomes.
H1a: There exist different drivers that lead to customer-brand relationships turning
negative.
H1b: Negative customer-brand relationships are often caused by more than one
driver.
H1c: The different drivers have varying degrees of negative impact on the customer-
brand relationships.
2. To isolate key drivers within an industry and examine trends in the drivers across
different industries
The three chosen industries – F&B, consumer electronics and telecommunications –
may be product-centric, but students attribute different levels of importance to each
driver in the different industries. While we can identify common antecedents of
negative customer-brand relationships in all three industries, each of these
antecedents will not affect the various industries to the same effect. For example,
Page 36 of 195

37. students might expect better service quality from the consumer electronics industry
relative to the F&B industry, because of the significant post-sales support services
required in the former. We therefore recognise that there may not be a common
reason for negative customer-brand relationships across different industries. Hence,
we aim to identify the most significant drivers from each industry.
In addition, this paper aims to compare the drivers of negative customer-brand
relationships across all three industries and to examine the reasons for their
similarities or differences. While we recognise that this might not have direct and
immediate benefits to the three industries in particular, it is our hope that this analysis
will aid future research in the subject of negative customer-brand relationships. In
particular, it would allow academics to expand upon our work, and identify possible
antecedents in industries outside of the three that we have identified in this study.
H2: Every driver has a different significance in each industry.
Page 37 of 195

38. 3. To identify the role of the media in catalysing effects of the antecedents and
exacerbating the negative response of affected customers
As mentioned in the literature review, negative media publicity affects the sales and
consumer demand of a brand (Ahluwalia et al, 2000; Berger et al, 2010; Eliashberg &
Shugan, 1997). We adapted Li and Bernoff’s (2008) Marketing Funnel model and
hypothesised that the spread of negative sentiments can be catalysed by the media
via our Negative Information Funnel in Figure 3.2. This funnel describes how
negative information will start out at the mouth of the funnel and move down a route
of 5 stages, before ultimately being ‘re-spread’ by the customer at the last step of the
funnel.
Page 38 of 195
NEGATIVE
INFORMATION FUNNEL
Figure 3.2: The Negative information funnel

39. Our model represents the proposed cognitive and behavioural steps involved
following negative publicity and comprises of five key stages:
1. Awareness. The consumer becomes conscious of negative news surrounding
a brand through different media forms such as the newspapers.
2. Interest. The negative news is in line with the consumer’s interests, beliefs or
preferences and they further investigate the relevance of the information. For
example, search engines and social networking sites track and remember a
user’s keyword searches and activities allowing them to present information
that is of interest to the user the next time he uses it.
3. [Self] Evaluation. The consumer cognitively assesses the information made
available to them. The media could possibly indirectly affect this step by
presenting the consumer with the same information through multiple media
channels, affecting a customer’s perception towards the credibility of the
information. In addition, being made aware of negative news through a media
channel such as the BBC channel would probably have more credibility
compared to a negative sentiment spread through online forums.
4. Listen or Ignore. A decision step whereby a judgment of the information is
made. The consumer decides to either take action (listen) or dismiss (ignore)
the negative news.
5. Referral. The consumer defends the brand or further spreads the negative
sentiments through negative WOM. In today’s context, there is an increasing
ease of spreading negative sentiments using the media.
We suggest that the media can influence each step of the model but has a key
catalytic effect observed in the Awareness step. In contrast, the role of the media is
probably smaller in the last few steps. This is especially true in today’s context as the
media landscape has changed dramatically with the emergence of online and social
media. In particular, consumers today have a much easier and convenient medium to
Page 39 of 195

40. raise the awareness of negative publicity. Hence, we hypothesise that the media
indirectly affects the development of negative customer-brand relationships by
catalysing the effect of negative drivers. Additionally, due to the increasing variety
and nature of media channels available, we postulate that it is possible that different
media channels can exacerbate negative customer responses to dissatisfaction in
customer-brand relationships to different degrees, thus intensifying the undesirable
consequences
H3a: The media catalyses and aggravates the negative effect of the drivers.
H3b: Different drivers are catalysed by varying degrees depending on the media
channel.
H3c: The media exacerbates the negative behavioural responses of the customers.
4. To provide recommendations to brands on how to minimise or remove negative
influences on their relationships with customers
Research undertaken by PR firms Weber Shandwick and KRC Research (2007)
approximated that 20% of customers display some type of negative behaviour after
brands fail to deliver acceptable results. These customers could turn to alienation
(Lowenstein, 2011) or even badvocacy (Shandwick, 2009) to express their
disaffection in the relationship. It is therefore important to forestall these events and
to minimise the damage of negative voice and badvocacy. Therefore, we put across
the hypotheses that it is possible to recommend solutions to prevent or reduce the
occurrence of brand rejection, and to minimise or nullify the harmful effects of
negative influences.
The problems that stem from negative customer-brand relationships can, and will, be
prevented if the negative relationships are not given any opportunity to fester.
Therefore, brands are required to take a step back and loosen the Gordian knot from
the outset by first addressing each driver. From H2 there is a need for brands in
different industries to pay attention to different drivers based on their significance and
negative impact on relationships. We can postulate that even if brand rejection
Page 40 of 195

41. cannot be completely prevented, it can at least be impeded or reduced. In the event
that brands are unable to fully thwart brand rejection, actions can still be taken to
cushion the impact by looking to the brand detractors.
Maria Ogneva (2011) writes that brands could possibly identify individuals behind the
negative publicity by paying attention to different media channels and reach out to
them with a genuine aim of helping them solve their issues. One way of achieving
this would be to establish a customer-relations department that would focus on the
task of resolving the problems of consumers.
This project aims to build on previous research as well as to incorporate ways to
minimise the negative effects of badvocates in order to provide brands with the
appropriate recommendations.
H4a: It is possible to prevent or reduce the occurrence of brand rejection.
H4b: The harmful effects of negative voice and badvocacy can be minimised or
nullified.
Page 41 of 195

42. 4.
Methodology
A comprehensive range of primary and secondary research was undertaken in order
to establish and understand the drivers and outcomes of negative customer-brand
relationships. We relate this section to the main aims and objectives in this work,
together with their associated hypotheses.
1. To identify the drivers behind negative customer-brand relationships in
addition to understanding consumer responses to these drivers.
H1a: There exist different drivers that lead to customer-brand relationships turning
negative.
H1b: Negative customer-brand relationships are often caused by more than one
driver.
H1c: The different drivers have varying degrees of negative impact on the customer-
brand relationships.
2. To isolate the key drivers and examine trends across the different
industries.
H2: Every driver has a different significance in each industry.
The first two objectives necessitate the same exploration process involving both
secondary and primary research and can thus be addressed together. We first
undertook secondary research to form and test our hypotheses; a literature review
was carried out to investigate the factors that contribute to negative turns in
customer-brand relationships. This study took into account academic journals as well
as newspaper articles and blogs. The literature review was crucial in aiding our
Page 42 of 195

43. appreciation of the insights and opinions of the scholars in the field, and played a key
role in our investigation of the hypotheses. The research was broken down into three
key sections in an attempt to thoroughly grasp the dynamics of customer-brand
relationships: a) positive customer-brand relationships; b) negative customer-brand
relationships and their associated antecedents; and c) consumer behavioural
responses. The salient points of the reviewed literature are discussed below.
a) Positive customer-brand relationships. The aim here was to gain an initial
understanding of customer-brand relationships, and to look at how negative
customer-brand relationships may occur due to a decline or absence of
factors that contribute to positive customer-brand relationships.
b) Psychological perspectives and antecedents resulting in negative customer-
brand relationships. Our group looked to literature for insight in the driving
forces behind dissatisfactions in interpersonal relationships and similarities in
customer-brand relationships. This step was crucial in that it formed the basis
for subsequent primary research in this study.
c) Behavioural responses. While considerably limited and not up-to-date, the
literature with regard to consumer responses still allowed for some
identification of the possible outcomes when customer-brand relationships
turn negative. However, we acknowledge that in light of the lack of more
recent direct literature on the subject, it was therefore important to revise
older models of behavioural responses. We have therefore adapted Rusbult,
Zembrodt and Gunn’s (1982) model to include more recent findings on
consumer psychology and behaviour.
Primary research was undertaken in several ways. Qualitative interviews were
simultaneously conducted with academics experienced in the area, marketing
personnel from various organisations, as well as users of the products in the three
Page 43 of 195

44. selected industries (F&B, consumer electronics and telecommunications). This was
considered appropriate as interviews were much more personal and hence more
likely to elicit honest opinions, especially towards the negative aspects – which our
group felt was difficult to achieve with quantitative surveys. The limited nature of the
information available on the nascent subject of negative customer-brand
relationships warranted the use of an exploratory process inspired by the grounded
theory method. This method entailed a constant comparison of the various interview
transcripts to identify emergent themes, allowing for the formulation of the drivers
pertinent to negative customer-brand relationships. These interviews provided an
opportunity to gain substantial insight into the drivers of negative customer-brand
relationships from the perspectives of the brands (companies), users and academics.
The interviews were mostly conducted on a face-to-face basis, with only one taking
place via the telephone. This allowed interviews to include more complex topics,
such as an interviewee’s attitude to potential drivers or outcomes, a critical facet
considered to be difficult to achieve when using telephone interviews (Colombotos,
1969). The general interview guide approach (Turner, 2010) involved the utilisation of
a structured set of questions, whilst also allowing a conversational element. This
would provide the interviewer a direction in which the discussion could be steered,
and allowed for the flexibility to tailor questions towards the answers that
interviewees had already given. This approach had the main purpose of ensuring
that the group asked a consistent set of questions to all interviewees. The fluid nature
of interviews gave the opportunity for a higher degree of exploitation of the
interviewee’s expertise. Full transcripts for all interviews conducted are documented
in Appendices A-C. An interview consent form is also attached in Appendix E.
In addition, we validated the negative drivers and investigated the negative impact of
the different drivers in each industry via surveys with student users. A convenience
sample was chosen in order to avoid the difficult and costly nature of gathering a
representative sample of students who were certain to have prior negative
Page 44 of 195

45. experiences with brands. The survey was conducted online and propagated through
social media and e-mail platforms. The use of social media facilitated greater access
to the student population, increasing the total number of survey participants. No
particular brands were specifically surveyed due to insufficient information regarding
the nature of the individual customer-brand relationships. Determining these
relationships would have required conducting multiple longitudinal studies, which
would go beyond the constraints of time in this project. Furthermore, as the research
concerns the negative attributes of customer-brand relationships, companies would
be reluctant in sharing information pertaining to negative aspects of their business,
making the study of any one brand difficult.
To gather the data required, the participants were given hypothetical situations
representing each of the drivers identified through the interviews with academics and
the industry experts. Participants were given a choice of surveys from each of the
selected industries in which to partake, which we argue would serve two purposes:
1. Students could respond about industries which they felt most strongly about,
which we believed could give a more accurate representation of negative
behaviour. If, on the other hand, students were made to answer surveys from all
three industries, the lukewarm responses from individuals who were unconcerned
about a particular industry could have a diluting effect on the results.
2. The number of participants in each industry could provide a valuable indication as
to which industries were more prone to negative customer-brand relationships.
While we appreciate that each question could possibly elicit more than one response
from the individual, participants were limited to only one option in each question to
facilitate the greater ease of analysis and interpretation of the results. An attempt to
circumvent the issue and more accurately capture the behavioural responses was to
ensure the options provided a wide range of possible reactions, so as to best
represent their response in the given situation.
Page 45 of 195

46. The use of the hypothetical scenarios enabled effective engagement of students and
allowed for an easier understanding of the different drivers. To accurately represent
the outcomes/behavioural responses of the specific drivers of negative customer-
brand relationships, a five-point scale was proposed, as shown in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1: Proposed five-point scale of customer responses to dissatisfaction with a
brand
Scale
a 1 2 3 4 5
Outcome/
Behavioural
Response
Loyalty
Positive
Voice
Switch
Negative
Voice
Badvocacy
a 1 = most positive, 5 = most negative
Due to the novelty of this study towards negative customer-brand relationships, a
consensus on an updated model for judging customer behavioural response was
lacking in the literature. This scale in our study was adapted and modified from the
model proposed by Rusbult, Zembrodt and Gunn, 1982 – as discussed in the
literature review above – to increase the accuracy of representation in today’s
context of consumer behaviour.
Our proposed scale comprises the following five behavioural classifications:
1. Loyalty refers to when the customer stays in the relationship in hope of an
improvement. This outcome has the least severe negative impact on brands
and hence, has been assigned a ‘1’ on our five point scale.
2. Positive voice is when customers actively communicate their dissatisfaction to
the brand. In addition, consumers may start to show a decrease in the usage
of a brand and may search for alternatives.
Page 46 of 195

47. 3. Switch refers to the permanent and final dissolution of the customer-brand
relationship when customers switch to an alternative brand.
4. Negative voice refers to the case when customers actively communicate their
dissatisfaction of a brand to their close peers and families.
5. Badvocacy refers to the case where the customer spreads negative
sentiments via negative WOM to third parties through their networks. We have
classified this as the fifth and most negative response, and distinct from
negative voice. This could include instances where customers engage in
activities such as posting hate videos on YouTube and boycotts, and is
particularly harmful to the brand. The additional severity of negative WOM to
the wider public requires a special distinction from negative WOM to close
peers and family. This response is also recognised to be more extreme and
requires further behavioural effort from the individual. Even though there is a
lack of understanding into the phenomenon of negative WOM and the general
dissatisfaction response (Richins, 1983), it is commonly accepted that
consumers place substantial weight on non-marketing dominated sources of
information, especially those that are negative, in forming opinions and making
evaluations (Richins, 1983). The separation of these quite distinct responses
was therefore considered to be justified for the purpose of our study.
Survey questions were structured to reveal the responses towards each driver
and the results of the survey are presented as a percentage of respondents who
chose that particular option within each industry. The options given in the survey
were based on our five point scale in Table 4.1 of consumer responses towards
dissatisfaction with a brand; option 1 corresponding to the least negative
behaviour, ‘loyalty’ and option 5 representing the case where consumers turn to
‘badvocacy’. In addition, we assigned weighting scores to each of the outcomes in
Page 47 of 195

48. order to compare the degree of negativity for each outcome relative to the number
of respondents who chose that option. The weighting varied from 1 to 5 depending
upon the negativity of the outcome from consumer behaviour, the percentage
respondents for each option was then multiplied against the weighting to calculate
the weighted negative score for each of the drivers. This was essential in enabling
us to examine and explain trends within each industry objectively and more
accurately.
3. To identify the role of the media in catalysing the effect of the antecedents
and exacerbating the negative response of affected customers
H3a: The media catalyses and aggravates the negative effect of the drivers.
H3b: Different drivers are catalysed by varying degrees depending on the media
channel.
H3c: The media exacerbates the negative behavioural responses of the
customers.
Interviews with academics and student users were initially carried out with the
intention of gaining insight into the role of the media in catalysing the effects of the
antecedents and aggravating the outcomes of the negative customer-brand
relationships. However, early results of the interview proved to be inconclusive. This
made it difficult to test the three hypotheses that we set out to prove.
Firstly, interviewees were unable to differentiate between the different media
channels that affect their perception towards a brand. While this might sound
counter-intuitive, a closer look at the various forms of media revealed overlaps
between them. For example, Facebook would be considered a social media platform
but users could use it to share links of online news articles with other users. Hence,
Page 48 of 195

49. consumers would be confused as to which media channels were they influenced by
and to what degree. We were therefore unable to test H3b.
In addition, H3a and H3c proved difficult to test within the time and resource
constraints of this project. In order to test these hypotheses, we would have needed
to establish a control group to determine the difference between the effects of the
drivers with and without the presence of the media. In addition, interviewees were
unable to provide us with clear answers on their opinion of the effect of the media on
drivers for brand rejection. This could be explained by the fact that the media, being
so tightly intertwined with our lives today, exerts a subconscious effect on us.
4. To provide recommendations to brands on how to minimise or remove
negative influences on their relationships with customers.
H4a: It is possible to prevent or reduce the occurrence of brand rejection.
H4b: The harmful effects of negative voice and badvocacy can be minimised or
nullified.
Earlier work to identify drivers and trends of negative customer-brand
relationships were crucial to this part of the study. By understanding the
significance of the antecedents in each industry, we can offer recommendations
to firms to focus marketing efforts towards pre-empting or eliminating those key
drivers, thereby preventing or impeding the development of negative customer-
brand relationships. In addition, this work also attempts to provide possible
solutions to companies to help minimise or nullify the harmful effects of negative
voice and badvocacy in cases where their influence cannot be easily prevented.
Page 49 of 195

50. 5.Results
5.1. Results from Interviews
The types of interviews carried out can be categorised into three different clusters as
illustrated in Figure 5.1. These interviews contributed towards the initial primary
research for the project, and played a pivotal role in the determination of the five key
drivers of negative customer-brand relationships.
The student interview comprised university students in the UK and had the main
purpose of providing us with a student’s perspective on the subject. With students
being the target customers of this work, these interviews were essential and their
views and perspectives were given the highest weight in the consideration of drivers.
Brand employees were also interviewed to allow for a brand’s view on the
development of negativity in customer-brand relationships. In addition, we sought
discussions with academics to achieve a more inclusive understanding of the
customer-brand relationship. The interviews therefore attempted to address all three
perspectives of negative customer-brand relationships.
Page 50 of 195
Figure 5.1: Schematic representation of the three categories of interviews conducted

51. 5.1.1. Brand Employee Interviews
Time constraints coupled with the reluctance of key brand personnel to grant
interviews proved to be the biggest hurdles in this area – only two brands, Starbucks
and Cadbury-Kraft, gave their representatives consent to do an interview. Although
these were valuable brands capable of providing valuable insight into the dynamics
of customer-brand relationships, we recognised the potential limitations in
perspectives as both were from the food and beverage industry.
The group interviewed a store manager of Starbucks based in London, as well as a
brand manager within the Cadbury-Kraft label. Both interviews were face-to-face,
and carried out using a semi-structured interview format (Barriball, 1994; Burnard,
1991). The conversations contributed to the identification of some antecedents for
negative customer-brand relationships, whilst also revealing steps that the
companies have implemented or have considered taking in efforts to minimise the
strain in customer-brand relationships.
For Starbucks, the conversations were carried out on two occasions with a store
manager who had been with the organisation for longer than four years. The
employee, who declined to be named, was surprisingly candid in conveying her
thoughts, permitting a more intimate understanding of the customer-employee
interaction. The following quotes illustrate this and show how customer-brand
relationships can become strained:
“Their [new employees of Starbucks] aim is just to make a quick buck. Hence, they
will only provide the bare minimum needed to satisfy the customer’s utility needs and
nothing more (Starbucks Store Manager [London], 2012)
Page 51 of 195

52. “Most of the negative stuff occur during the peak hours of the day (08:00-10:00
and 17:00-19:00). During the morning rush hours, people want to be served as
fast as possible whereas in the evenings, they want to find a comfortable place to
sit and unwind.” (Starbucks Store Manager [London], 2012)
While the first quote gives a reason why there was a lack of motivation from the
employees, the second quote hints at a possible service quality gap, where the
consumers’ expectations are not aligned with what the brand delivers; because
consumer expectations change throughout the day, a poor understanding of these
changes could easily result in the customer perceiving the service as being
substandard. The abovementioned examples revealed via the interviews conducted
thus provided the group with a valuable perspective into the role that service can play
in a customer-brand relationship. These interviews highlight the many instances
when firms in service-centric industries such as Starbucks fail to pay attention to the
intangible aspects that might negatively affect their brand’s image. The discrepancy
in company-employee communications resulted in failure to deliver the intended
service as exemplified in the March 14th free latte debacle (Starbucks Store Manager
[London], 2012).
The second industry interview was conducted with Jillian McCall, the brand manager
of Cadbury Crème Eggs and Mini Eggs for Cadbury-Kraft. The interviewee has had
experience in working with Roses and Heroes, Christmas portfolios, and Trident
chewing gum, among other products. The diverse number of products she has
worked with within Cadbury’s multi-product line lends credibility to her account on
how the company manages its brand identity. Coincidentally, as the target market for
the Cadbury Crème Eggs and Mini Eggs are youths aged 16 to 24, her experience is
well-suited to the purpose of our study. The interview highlighted the brand’s
perspective of what it deemed was most important.
Page 52 of 195

53. “Product is really important and what you do with your product, you don't want to strip
cost out and compromise on quality. In the food industry, the big issue is to do with
quality, i.e. health and safety.” (McCall, 2012)
Additionally, this interview provided us with some understanding as to how
Cadbury-Kraft manages the media in shaping their brand identity.
“We use PR firms to get positive press releases. This can be a product launch, a new
advert, new content. For example we had a model of a giant Crème Egg splattered in
Covent Garden which was a nice picture story for the press.” (McCall, 2012)
5.1.2. User Interviews
On separate occasions, in-depth interviews were conducted on five students in
Imperial College London to gain a perspective of what they considered were factors
that would cause their relationship with a brand to turn negative. Each interview
included all of the three chosen industries – food and beverage (F&B), consumer
electronics and telecommunications – and the participants were encouraged to
discuss at length their thoughts and views about each driver they named, as well as
examples of any negative experiences they had associated with the driver. At the end
of every industry-based discussion, the students were also asked to rank the drivers
in order of importance within that specific industry. The results from these interviews
have been organised into Tables 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3 below, and these were cross-
referenced with the interviews in the other groups to aid in the identification of the
key drivers of negative customer-brand relationships across the industries.
Rank a Student 1 Student 2 Student 3 Student 4 Student 5
1 Cleanliness Product qualityProduct qualityProduct qualityProduct quality
2 Reputation Cleanliness
Value for
money
Value for
money
Service
Page 53 of 195
Table 5.1: Drivers of negative customer-brand relationships within the food and
beverage industry according to interviewed students, ranked by importance

54. 3 Ethics Service Convenience Ambience -
4
Product
Quality
Brand
reputation
Ambience Variety -
5 - Ethics Service - -
Rank a Student 1 Student 2 Student 3 Student 4 Student 5
1
Prior
experience
Product
quality
Product
quality
Service Product quality
2 User reviews
Prior
experience
Value for
money
. Reviews
Complementary
assets
3
Post-sales
service
Product’s post
sales services
Ease of use Track record Durability
4 Aesthetics - Aesthetics - Ethics
5 - - Service - Service
Rank a Student 1 Student 2 Student 3 Student 4 Student 5
1 Reliability Reliability Reliability Reliability
Product
quality
2
Product
quality
Product
quality
Value for
money
Customer
service
Reliability
3 Service Service
Product
quality
Value for
money
Service
4
Switching
costs
Switching
costs
Service
Brand
reputation
-
5.1.3. Academic Interviews
Interviews were carried out with academics in the field, the expert witnesses, to
provide the perspectives of expert witnesses. Interviews were successfully
conducted with the following academics:
Page 54 of 195
a 1 = most important factor ranked by the student for this industry, 5 = least important
a 1 = most important factor ranked by the student for this industry, 5 = least important
a 1 = most important factor ranked by the student for this industry, 5 = least important
Table 5.2: Drivers of negative customer-brand relationships within the consumer
electronics industry according to interviewed students, ranked by importance
Table 5.3: Drivers of negative customer-brand relationships within the
telecommunications industry according to interviewed students, ranked by
importance

55. 1. Mr Colin Love, Principal Teaching Fellow, Imperial College London Business
School.
2. Dr.Lee Yih Hwai, Associate Professor, National University of Singapore
Business School
3. Dr.Boris Maciejovsky, Assistant Professor, Imperial College London
Business School.
4. Dr.Yuri Mishina, Assistant Professor in OB/Strategy, Imperial College
London Business School.
These interviews capitalized on the extensive experience and expertise of the
interviewees to provide credible insight into the possible drivers of negative
customer-brand relationships. An interview with Mr Love was requested as his
academic expertise as a teaching fellow in strategy and marketing, as well as his
prior professional experience as senior management directorship with Avon
Cosmetics, would be invaluable to this study. In his interview, Mr. Love highlighted
poor product quality as an important driver for negative customer-brand relationships
in the food & beverage industry.
“But when it comes down to the choice between Costa and Starbucks, the first
criteria will be the quality of coffee, then the aesthetics and other stuff follows such as
Wi-Fi” (Love, 2012)
In addition, Mr. Love stressed the importance of service quality across all industries
and how it was important to build good relationships with customers. He warned
about how “angry customers” might spread negative sentiments but added that
“happy customers” encouraged repurchase and positive word-of- mouth:
“If you have a customer complaint then you have an opportunity to correct what has
gone wrong and to turn an angry customer into a happy customer. If you can turn an
angry customer back into a happy customer. Then that has a couple of benefits;
firstly, that person is going to come back to you again. Secondly, they are going to tell
ten people that their problem was resolved.” (Love, 2012)
Page 55 of 195

56. In addition, he felt that service staff are in the front line of the company and have
direct interaction with brand customers and hence, must be trained well to present
the brand in good light.
“They [new Starbucks employees] come in working part-time and are getting very
poor training. Therefore, one of the key issues is to fix the quality of the staff.” (Love,
2012)
The interview carried out with Dr. Lee also provided us with a greater understanding
of the drivers that could strain the customer-brand bond. His research interests
include information processing in advertisements and the linguistic effects in
consumer behaviors. We were therefore able to gain more insight from a consumer’s
point of view. In particular, Dr. Lee provided an academic opinion on how product
quality, service quality and atmosphere of the transaction could be significant drivers
of negative customer-brand relationships.
“Intangible factors such as product service and atmosphere during the business
transaction [can influence the overall product quality delivered]. Although a
shortfall in expectations can be the fuel (for a negative experience), how the
brand deals with that shortfall is the make or break factor” (Lee, 2012)
Another interview carried out with Dr. Boris Maciejovsky, whose research interests
focus on consumer behavior and decision-making, also provided the study with
insight into consumer behaviour. Like Mr. Love, Dr. Maciejovsky brought to our
attention the need for brands to reach out to customers with a genuine aim of
rectifying problems.
“Consumers do forgive companies if the company has the right PR strategy in place
at that point, acknowledging the mistake and fixing it right away, I think then there is
no problem at all. However, if they are self-defending, like the iPhone 3G for instance,
trying to teach consumers how to hold it and telling them that they are not holding it
Page 56 of 195

57. c o r r e c t l y, t h e n t h i s c r e a t e s m u c h m o r e b a c k l a s h i n t e r m s o f
consumers” (Maciejovsky, 2012)
In particular, he explained the difficulty for brands to build strong relationships
with student customers as they are more likely to try new alternatives.
“They (Students) have a less set mind-set, they are more open to try to use
things and it is much easier for them to drop things. This is important for brand
relationship and they are likely to be amplified by this kind of dynamic, as it is not
set in stone like in previous generations” (Maciejovsky, 2012)
Also, as Dr. Maciejovsky’s research interest was in how consumers
aggregated information, he discussed the role of media in negative customer-
brand relationships and how dissatisfied customers may spread negative
sentiments via the social media in particular.
“Social media is interesting as it is attached to the opinion of people you care about.
It is a review from a cohort of people that you feel affiliated with and carries much
more weight.” (Maciejovsky, 2012)
The last interview was conducted with Dr. Yuri Mishina. His research examines how
top management and stakeholder belief systems can influence a firm’s strategic
choices and outcomes, shaping the consumer’s viewpoint in the process. In addition,
his work covers how corporate social performance and illegal activities can influence
a firm’s performance. This provided the study with valuable input on how brand
reputation and its associated consumer’s perceptions could be a key driver in brand
rejection.
“Depending on what you are selling, it changes the nature of what the customers
want as well. In looking at any type of social evaluation, be it an evaluation of a
company or a brand or a country there are two different dimensions that people focus
Page 57 of 195

58. on. One is based upon quality, performance and abilities. The other would be based
with character. There is this belief about the value system they hold and how well it
matches against you as a consumer. Hence, a company’s character is able to equally
influence your perception just as much as can a performance-based
criteria.” (Mishina,2012)
Page 58 of 195

59. 5.2. Survey Results
As detailed in the methodology section, a survey of students was conducted in order
to gauge the impact that negative customer-brand relationships can have on a brand.
A total of 226 survey responses were received for all three surveys. There were
uneven numbers of responses for each of the three industries, with the food and
beverage (F&B) industry having the highest number of respondents at 40%. The
distribution of responses is shown in Figure 5.2.
We have identified the five most relevant drivers for the three selected industries:
1. Product Quality
2. Service Quality
3. Brand Image
4. Social Influence
5. Alternatives/Competition
Survey results allowed for the examination of the effect of these drivers on each
industry as well as the comparison of the importance of these drivers across the
three industries.
5.2.1. Results within Industries
The negative weighted scores were calculated for each driver within an industry to
identify the most important driver with the highest negative score.
Page 59 of 195
Figure 5.2: The percentage of survey respondents for each of the three industries

60. The graph in Figure 5.3 shows that the driver with the most negative weighted score
was the presence of alternatives and competitive products, with a score of 2.70.
Social influence came in second, with a negative score of 2.42. Product quality and
service quality both had very similar levels of negative impact upon negative
customer-brand relationships, with scores of 2.19 and 2.20. Brand image had the
lowest score of 1.74.
Figure 5.4 shows that service quality had the highest negative score with a score of
3.42, which was significantly higher compared to the scores of the other drivers. On
the other hand the presence of alternatives or competition had the lowest score with
1.68. Product quality, brand image and social influence had similar negative scores of
1.94, 2.09 and 2.11 respectively.
Page 60 of 195
Figure 5.4: Resulting (negative) effect of consumer behaviour following dissatisfaction in the
consumer electronics industry.
Figure 5.3: Resulting (negative) effect of consumer behaviour following dissatisfaction in the F&B
industry. PQ refers to product quality, SQ refers to service quality, BI refers to brand image, SI
refers to social influence and A/C refers to the presence of alternative or competition.

61. Figure 5.5 shows the highest negativity score was attributed to the product quality
with a score of 2.79 as shown above. Service quality had the second highest score,
with a score of 2.51. Social influence and alternatives/competition had similar scores
of 2.06 and 2.07. Finally brand image received a significantly lower score of 1.17,
indicating the minimal effect it has on negative sentiments relative to the other
drivers.
Page 61 of 195
Figure 5.5: Resulting (negative) effect of consumer behaviour following dissatisfaction in the
telecommunications industry.