MMGreendemarketing

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/281150826
Less is more: Is a green demarketing strategy sustainable?
Article in Journal of Marketing Management · January 2015

DOI: 10.1080/0267257X.2015.1059874
CITATIONS READS
27 8,680
2 authors:
Catherine Armstrong Soule Brandon Reich

Western Washington University Portland State University
10 PUBLICATIONS 76 CITATIONS 10 PUBLICATIONS 253 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Brandon Reich on 22 August 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [University of Oregon], [Brandon Reich]
On: 22 August 2015, At: 15:42
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: 5 Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG
Journal of Marketing Management

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjmm20
Less is more: is a green demarketing

strategy sustainable?
a b
Catherine A. Armstrong Soule & Brandon J. Reich
a
College of Business and Economics, Western Washington
University, Bellingham, WA, USA
b
Lundquist College of Business, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR,
USA
Published online: 22 Jun 2015.
Click for updates
To cite this article: Catherine A. Armstrong Soule & Brandon J. Reich (2015) Less is more: is a
green demarketing strategy sustainable?, Journal of Marketing Management, 31:13-14, 1403-1427,
DOI: 10.1080/0267257X.2015.1059874
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2015.1059874
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [University of Oregon], [Brandon Reich] at 15:42 22 August 2015
Journal of Marketing Management, 2015
Vol. 31, Nos. 13–14, 1403–1427, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2015.1059874
Less is more: is a green demarketing strategy

sustainable?
Catherine A. Armstrong Soule, College of Business and Economics,

Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA, USA
Brandon J. Reich, Lundquist College of Business, University of
Oregon, Eugene, OR, USA
Abstract The research explores consumers’ perceptions of the business

motivations behind a new type of sustainable business strategy – green
demarketing. Green demarketing refers to a strategy whereby a brand
encourages consumers to buy less at the category level through purchase of
the company’s brand for the sake of the environment. Two studies show that
consumer motive attributions and attitudes may depend on the brand’s
perceived fit with sustainable business practices. Specifically, results show
that the brand’s environmental reputation is the strongest predictor of
consumers’ responses towards a green demarketing campaign, with effects
persisting above and beyond the influences of the brand’s length of
commitment to environmental protection and consumers’ brand habits.
Implications for practice and future research are proposed.
Keywords green marketing; demarketing; advertising; corporate social

responsibility; marketing strategy; anti-consumption
The system of consumerism may seem like an immovable fact of modern life.
But it is not. . . .we can reshape those forces to create a healthier, more
sustainable system with a more fulfilling goal than ‘more stuff’.
Rachel Botsman and Roo Rodgers (2010, p. 39)
Introduction
‘Reduce. Reuse. Recycle’. Few people realise that this familiar slogan promoting
ecologically sustainable behaviours is sequenced in order of importance and impact.
The misguided tendency to focus on the arguably inefficient recycling process
(Tyskeng & Finnveden, 2010) has drawn focus away from the first commandment.
The imperative to ‘reduce’ consumption is often considered to be a more effective,
Authorship of this article is shared equally.
© 2015 Westburn Publishers Ltd.

1404 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 31
albeit less popular way for an individual (or a company) to help do their part to
mitigate damage done to the natural environment. However, from a for-profit
perspective, putting the focus back on the primary means to act sustainably runs
counter to fundamental business (and marketing) strategy, namely, demand creation.
Is it feasible for a for-profit company to support ecological sustainability (hereafter
referred to simply as ‘sustainability’) by utilising a marketing management strategy
that encourages reduced consumption? How would consumers respond to a
marketing message that implores them to buy less? Even when it champions
sustainable consumption, marketing strategy has almost exclusively emphasised
demand creation. Any deliberate attempts at demand reduction by marketers may
seem surprising, confusing or even non-sensical at first glance. However, a close
examination of the extant marketing literature reveals several reasons why a for-
profit company may wish to reduce demand for – that is ‘demarket’ – its products, as
summarised by Kotler and Levy’s (1971) demarketing framework. We propose herein
an extension to the demarketing framework, namely a strategy designed to reduce
consumption in order to build a sustainable brand image. Green demarketing, as we
define it, is a brand’s strategic attempt to reduce consumption at a category level
through encouraging focal brand purchase, ostensibly out of concern for the
environment. To the best of our knowledge, green demarketing and consumer
perceptions of the motivations behind this strategy have yet to be explored
empirically. This gap in the literature is especially surprising given the high
compatibility between demarketing and sustainability, as well as repeated calls for
increased attention from our discipline to these issues (McEachern & Carrigan,
2012). In this article, we consider the importance of ‘green demarketing’ and begin
to explore the role that marketing management can play in demand reduction for the
purpose of promoting sustainability. Specifically, we test whether the environmental
reputation of the brand and its length of commitment to ecological concern affect
consumer motive attributions for green demarketing activities. Further, we test the
possible role of habitual consumption in this context.
In this article, we begin by exploring why companies might attempt to suppress
consumer demand. We then review key research in the anti-consumption and
sustainability literatures, laying fertile ground for the theoretically novel but currently
practised marketing strategy of reducing demand to signal a commitment to sustainability,
which we call green demarketing. Because green demarketing messages are novel and
counter to accepted norms, it is critical to explore both the consumer responses that they
evoke and the factors that may influence these responses. Accordingly, we present the
results of two studies, which taken together, provide preliminary empirical evidence
concerning the effects of some of these factors (i.e. environmental reputation of the
brand, length of commitment to ecological protection and consumers’ habitual purchase
patterns) on the success of a green demarketing strategy.
Marketing strategy and demand suppression
Marketing strategies are traditionally focused on creating demand for a product or

service. Indeed, classical definitions of the term ‘marketing’ tend to emphasise the
demand creation aspect. For instance, Merriam-Webster (2015) defines marketing as
‘the process or technique of promoting, selling, and distributing a product or service’.
However counterintuitive it may seem, there are several situations in which
Armstrong Soule and Reich Less is more: is a green demarketing strategy sustainable? 1405
suppressing demand is a sensible marketing management strategy. Originally coined

by Kotler and Levy (1971), the term ‘demarketing’ refers to such a class of strategies.
Their initial framework outlined three categories of demarketing based on the
ambitions of the company: general (to adjust to supply shortage), selective (to
support segmentation strategy) and ostensible (to signal product scarcity), each
described in turn below.
Initially, general demarketing was discussed almost exclusively as a reactive
strategy in reference to the energy crisis of 1973 (e.g. Cullwick, 1975; Kotler,
1974) and contemporary macroeconomic conditions such as inflation (Shama,
1978). In such situations, demand exceeds supply, and this unmet demand is
expected to damage customer satisfaction (Cullwick, 1975; Kotler & Levy, 1971)
and create long-term customer ill-will due to disappointment (Kotler, 1974). Thus,
the preferred strategy is to use the marketing mix (i.e. ‘The 4 Ps’) to suppress demand
such that it is commensurate with supply.
In the following decades, marketing researchers began to more closely examine the
idea of selective demarketing to maintain a particular brand image. For example,
Park, Jaworski, and MacInnis (1986) introduced a ‘market shielding’ strategy of
brand management that incorporates the major tenet of selective demarketing (i.e.
demarketing to specific segments). More recent research applications (e.g. Medway
& Warnaby, 2008; Medway, Warnaby, & Dharni, 2010) have focused on the selective
demarketing of places, such as tourist destinations, to maintain a particular image of
the place’s ‘brand’. Citizens of Portland, Oregon, for example recently released an
anti-tourism video (Rook, 2015) to discourage the dilution of the local culture by the
recent influx of tourists.
As explained by Kotler (1973) in The Major Tasks of Marketing Management,
selective demarketing often occurs in luxury markets, but can also be applied to the
public sector, such as a police department that wants to more efficiently devote its
resources by discouraging trivial calls. Kotler also cautions that selective demarketing
in some cases may be ‘ethically dubious’ (p. 47). Indeed, selective demarketing
strategies are often (rightly) construed in popular media as instances of
discrimination, ironically damaging the company’s brand image and bottom line
due to consumer backlash.
Ostensible demarketing represents a strategy that is more intuitively congruent
with conventional marketing strategy: suppress demand to signal scarcity in the short
run with the hopes of actually growing long-term demand. The literature on product
scarcity is far too broad to fully discuss herein (see Lynn, 1991, for a seminal review
of the theory; or Gierl & Huettl, 2010, for a more recent discussion), but typically
scarcity is perceived as a signal of value. It has often been speculated that modern
brands, such as Apple, have orchestrated intentional stock outs of newly released
products to enhance consumer buzz and demand (Federico-O’Murchu, 2014,
December 5).
Many applications of demarketing diverge from the above three ambitions. One
such application aims to suppress ‘unwholesome demand’ (Kotler, 1973) and thus
emphasises public health and policy considerations. Examples include suppressing
demand for tobacco (Shiu, Hassan, & Walsh, 2009), alcohol (Ornstein & Hanssens,
1985) and foods related to obesity (Wansink & Huckabee, 2005). Other extensions
focus more on traditional corporate ambitions but exist outside of the classic
framework, such as demarketing to avoid a price war (Gerstner, Hess, & Chu,
1993) or to manage product quality inferences (Miklós-Thal & Zhang, 2013). This
body of research has generally shown that applying the forces of the marketing mix
can have the desired effect of suppressing demand in these contexts. Note that none
of the above examples address sustainability as a potential motivation for demand
suppression. It is possible that marketing messages designed to reduce consumption
can be perceived as a manner of corporate social responsibility (CSR), specifically
sustainability, which we explore in the following section.
CSR and sustainability
CSR refers to ‘the managerial obligation to take action to protect and improve both
the welfare of society as a whole and the interest of organizations’ (as cited in Sen &
Bhattacharya, 2001, p. 226). Although this definition suggests an altruistic
component to CSR actions, marketing research in the area has largely focused on
how CSR can benefit the brand via enhanced consumer product evaluations (Brown
& Dacin, 1997), purchase intentions (Ellen, Webb, & Mohr, 2006; Sen &
Bhattacharya, 2001), satisfaction (Luo & Bhattacharya, 2006) and trust (Vlachos,
Tsamakos, Vrechopoulos, & Avramidis, 2009). Results generally support favourable
consequences for brands that engage in CSR, though as the research stream becomes
more sophisticated, increased attention is being directed at factors which may
potentiate or negate this effect.
Sustainability falls under the broad framework of CSR, and is defined as an activity
that ‘meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs’ (as cited in Bridges & Wilhelm, 2008, p. 34).
Although different types of sustainability have been defined in the literature (see
Bridges & Wilhelm, 2008), in this article we focus exclusively on ecological
sustainability, an emphasis that reflects the focus of recent marketing research (e.g.
Kahle & Gurel-Atay, 2014; Kotler, 2011; Luchs, Naylor, Irwin, & Raghunathan,
2010) and for decades has been a managerial priority for some brands in arguably
‘evangelical’ extremes (Newton & Harte, 1997). Laudable as this focus may be, it still
often presumes compatibility between sustainability and the presently enormous
levels of consumption in which modern consumer society engages. The popular
book Natural Capitalism (Hawken, Lovins, & Lovins, 2000), for example, seeks to
show that ‘there is no true separation between how we support life economically and
ecologically’ (p. 21). This perspective holds that through greener products and
processes, levels of consumption need not change in order to halt or even reverse
industrial harm on the environment, although the sentiments of influential
environmentalists (e.g. Princen, 2010), economists (e.g. Schumacher, 1989) and
marketing scholars (e.g. Sodhi, 2011) and authors (e.g. Botsman & Rogers, 2010)
alike have challenged this perspective. These oppositional attitudes towards
consumption, termed ‘anti-consumption’, from both consumer and producer
perspectives are reviewed in the next section.
Anti-consumption and the environment
It must first be clarified that anti-consumption is not necessarily driven by pro-social

motivations (Lee, Fernandez, & Hyman, 2009). Indeed, certain factions of anti-
consumers hold oppositional attitudes towards consumption based purely on
personal – rather than societal – concerns (Craig‐Lees & Hill, 2002; Iyer & Muncy,
2009). However, an abundance of current research also supports anti-consumption
induced by pro-social concerns in general (Chatzidakis & Lee, 2013; Galvagno,
2011; Lee, Motion, & Conroy, 2009) and ecological concerns in particular
(Cherrier, 2009; Hutter & Hoffmann, 2013; Iyer & Muncy, 2009).
Consistent with this rise in anti-consumption attitudes, there is a recent, growing
desire and perhaps a sense of obligation among marketers to attempt to undo the
ecological damage presumably caused by consumption (Blez & Peattie, 2012).
Indeed, Cherrier, Szuba, and Özçaglar-Toulouse (2012) describe marketing scholars’
recognition of this shift towards reduced consumption; however, to the best of our
knowledge, prior research has neither documented the real-life corporate practice of
green demarketing nor empirically tested its effects on consumer attitudes. Rather,
the marketing literature gives nearly exclusive attention to mainstream CSR practices,
which seem insufficient in addressing the macro-level consumer trend of rebelling
against consumerism for the sake of the environment.
Green demarketing therefore represents a theoretically novel concept with great
potential to extend both the demarketing and sustainability research streams, as well
as make a practical contribution to sustainable business practices. As mentioned in
Introduction, some brands have already begun implementing a green demarketing
strategy. For example, outdoor clothing retailer Patagonia created a print
advertisement for one of its garments with large print reading ‘DON’T BUY THIS
JACKET’ (see Figure 1) imposed over it, explaining that consuming less permits a
world in which nature can replace that which we consume. Further, Patagonia’s
website (2014) copy urges us to ‘consume less, and far more slowly’. Similarly, the
Glad Products Company (Glad, 2014) advertises its high-strength ForceFlex garbage
bag as a way for consumers to use fewer bags with an emphasis on how consumption
reduction is an important step towards reducing the amount of plastic sent to
landfills. The explicit message sent by both companies is that effective sustainability
Figure 1 ‘Don’t Buy This Jacket’ print advertisement (Property of Patagonia, Inc.
Used with permission).
requires a reduction in the quantity of consumption, therefore epitomising green

demarketing. Due to its novelty, it is critical to explore the consumer perceptions of
the brand’s motivations for engaging in this strategy, as discussed in the next section.
Motive attributions
When a brand employs a green demarketing strategy, how do consumers respond? In

order to begin to understand the feasibility of a green demarketing strategy, it is
imperative to explore consumer reactions to such an unexpected message. As already
described, CSR has historically been financially beneficial to brands, and it is likely
that many consumers understand these benefits. Indeed, it would be fairly illogical to
believe that any for-profit company would engage in a sustainability initiative in the
absence of some expected financial gain. Thus, depending on characteristics of the
brand and the message, corporate attempts to ‘go green’ can lead to consumer
scepticism. In more extreme cases, consumers may infer that the brand’s motives
for taking part in a sustainability initiative are entirely disingenuous and deceptive, a
practice known as ‘greenwashing’ (Laufer, 2003). Previous research has also
demonstrated that when an agent receives incentives for pro-social activities, a
crowding out effect (e.g. lower donations to a cause) occurs due to observers
questioning the authenticity of the agent’s motives (Bénabou & Tirole, 2005).
Ellen et al. (2006) and Vlachos et al. (2009) show that when a brand promotes its
CSR activities, consumers may infer altruistic (i.e. genuine concern for the cause),
strategic (i.e. a balanced concern for both the cause and attaining business goals) or
exploitative (i.e. total lack of concern for the cause) motives. Ellen et al. (2006)
demonstrated that characteristics of the brand may influence which motive
consumers tend to perceive. Specifically, the authors found that high (vs. low)
‘company–cause fit’ (i.e. the degree to which the cause being supported logically
matches the brand’s products or brand image) predicted increased altruistic and
strategic motive attributions and decreased exploitative motive attributions;
interestingly, they also found that length of commitment to the cause made no
difference in attributions of these three motives. Therefore, we make no
predictions based on length of brand commitment, but still explore its effects on
motive attributions and consumer attitudes. To incorporate company–cause fit into a
sustainability context, we operationalised this variable as the brand’s reputation of
environmental protection (hereafter referred to as ‘environmental reputation’). As
green demarketing is by definition a CSR strategy, we hypothesise the following:
H1a: Consumers will attribute increased (decreased) altruistic motives to

brands engaging in a green demarketing strategy when the brand has
an excellent (poor) environmental reputation.
H1b: Consumers will attribute increased (decreased) strategic motives to a
brand engaged in a green demarketing strategy when the brand has an
excellent (poor) environmental reputation.
H1c: Consumers will attribute decreased (increased) exploitive motives to a
brand engaged in a green demarketing strategy when the brand has an
excellent (poor) environmental reputation.
Ellen et al. (2006) also showed that company–cause fit predicted purchase
intentions, and that this relationship was mediated by consumer motive
attributions; more specifically, perceived altruistic and strategic motives positively
influenced purchase intentions, whereas perceived exploitative motives negatively
influenced purchase intentions. Once again, the authors found that length of
commitment had no effect on purchase intentions. Vlachos et al. (2009) extended
this line of research by showing that perceived altruistic motives also positively
influenced consumer trust and recommendation intentions, whereas exploitative
motives negatively influenced these two outcomes. Interestingly, neither of the
aforementioned publications examined attitudes as potential consequences of CSR
or motive attributions, even though extant research (for a review, see Pratkanis,
Breckler, & Greenwald, 2014) has shown that attitudes are strong predictors of
behaviour towards their objects. Because – according to the Theory of Reasoned
Action, the Theory of Planned Behaviour, and the Theory of Trying (for a review, see
Bagozzi, 1992) – attitudes and intentions are highly positively correlated with each
other, we expect the following:
H2: When a brand engaged in green demarketing has an excellent (poor)

environmental reputation, consumers will hold more (less) positive (a)
attitudes towards the brand, (b) attitudes towards the product and (c)
product performance expectations.
H3: The relationship between a brand’s environmental reputation and (a)
attitudes towards the brand, (b) attitudes towards the product and (c)
product performance expectations will be mediated by altruistic, strate-
gic and exploitative motive attributions.
Because a green demarketing strategy can be seen as an attempt to reduce demand

through brand choice, it is critical to explore the role that habitual purchase patterns
may play in this context. Consumer attitudes about the brand and product as well as
product performance expectations may be differentially affected depending on
whether the brand is the habitual purchase or not. The following section briefly
reviews the literature on habitual consumption and outlines our expectations
regarding the role of habitual purchase patterns in a green demarketing context.
Habitual consumption
Habits in general may be defined as ‘a specific type of automaticity characterized by a

rigid contextual cuing of behavior that does not depend on people’s goals and
intentions’ (Wood & Neal, 2009, p. 580). That is, all else equal, the mere
repetition of a behaviour in a certain context increases the likelihood that an
individual will again engage in that behaviour under a similar context in the future,
forming a habit. In a purchase context, the conditions under which a brand is
routinely purchased may increase the brand’s accessibility for the consumer, who in
turn is more likely to purchase that brand, independent of his or her goals and
intentions (Wood & Neal, 2009).
Although consumers do not always rely on their habits to guide purchase decisions
(Simonson, 1990), the realities of daily life (e.g. time pressure, distraction, etc.) make
habit-based consumption choices very likely in ordinary purchase situations, a result

which has been replicated extensively in quantitative modelling research (e.g. Erdem,
1996; Roy, Chintagunta, & Haldar, 1996; Seetharaman, 2004). Habit literature also
suggests that the mere act of habitual consumption increases favourable judgements
and attitudes towards the habitually purchased brand (Wood & Neal, 2009).
Specifically, in accordance with self-perception theory (Bem, 1972), consumers tend
to make post hoc inferences about their own attitudes based on their past behaviour,
thus inferring that habitual purchase of a brand must be due to personal preferences
and favourable brand attributes. Therefore, we expect the following:
H4: When the brand engaged in green demarketing is the habitual (non-
habitual) purchase, consumers will hold more (less) positive (a) attitudes
towards the brand, (b) attitudes towards the product and (c) product
performance expectations.
Roy et al. (1996) also suggest that the strength of the effect of habitual
consumption on attitudes and choice may be strong enough to override the
favourable aspects of an alternative brand. Thus, in a green demarketing context,
we expect more favourable attitudes and opinions of the habitual brand, regardless of
the brand’s environmental reputation. Formally stated:
H5: Habit will moderate the effect of environmental reputation on (a) attitudes
towards the brand, (b) attitudes towards the product and (c) product
performance expectations such that the positive (negative) effects of an
excellent (poor) environmental reputation will only be observed when the
green demarketing brand is not habitually purchased.
In the following sections, we present a summary of two studies. Study 1 is a

controlled laboratory experiment that explicitly tests H1 and H2 and provides some
initial empirical evidence of the effects of brand characteristics on consumers’
responses to green demarketing. Study 2 replicates these findings in a different
population and extends them by testing the mediating role of motive attributions
(H3) as well as the effects of habit on consumer attitudes and expectations in a green
demarketing context (H4 and H5).
Study 1: green demarketing motive attributions and evaluations
Study 1 was developed as a preliminary investigation of consumer reactions to

marketing messages that communicate a green demarketing strategy. The first
motivation for the study was to explore basic consumer responses to green
demarketing messages. Because green demarketing is in essence a type of CSR
activity, it was further important to explore whether different types of brand
messages will be perceived differently and why this might be. These disparate
attributions may cause certain types of brands to be more or less successful when
pursuing a green demarketing strategy.
The link between environmental reputation and consumers’ motive attributions
and attitudes are tested in Study 1. We tested a fictional brand and held the product
(trash bags) constant. Further, we manipulated the brand’s environmental reputation
and length of commitment to ecological protection rather than measuring existing

perceptions, allowing us to test for effects of both characteristics of the brand on
motive attributions. Although we do not make any predictions based on length of the
commitment, we include it as a factor in Study 1 to explore whether it may influence
motive attributions above and beyond environmental reputation.
Methodology
Data for Study 1 were collected from undergraduate business students at a large
north-western university (N = 78,1 28.2% female, mean age = 22.2 years). The
design was a 2 (environmental reputation: excellent, poor) × 2 (commitment length:
long, short) factor randomised design between subjects. Environmental reputation

was adapted from Luchs et al. (2010) and operationalised as a rating by the fictional
ethical product council (EPC), described to subjects as a rating on companies’ lifetime
contributions to protecting the environment. Commitment length was manipulated
as either long or short track record of introducing new sustainable products. The
study was administered on personal computers in a behavioural lab.
Respondents were informed that researchers were interested in their perceptions
of new product innovations. They first were provided with a short company
description of the fictional brand Zevo Products that was held for 15 seconds to
ensure that respondents thoroughly read the information. Respondents in all
conditions were informed that Zevo Products was a household products
manufacturer that was founded in 1994. Those in the long (short) commitment
conditions were told Zevo introduced its first environmentally friendly product in
1996 (2013) and had continued to develop sustainable products ever since. Further,
those in the excellent (poor) reputation condition were informed that Zevo had
achieved an excellent (poor), 9 out of 10 (2 out of 10) EPC rating.
Next, all respondents were presented with the same mock-up print advertisement
for the new Zevo trash bag (see Appendix 1) that was held for 20 seconds, after
which the respondents could proceed at their own pace. The advertisement contained
the brand logo, an image of a trash bag and a green demarketing message in the copy.
Specifically, the advertisement stated that because the Flexi-Grip Trash Bag was made
of stronger plastic, consumers could use fewer trash bags and reduce the amount of
plastic sent to landfills. This was also described as an important step for protecting
the environment.
After viewing the advertisement, respondents reported their motive attributions
on counterbalanced and randomised, three-item, seven-point Likert scales (see
Appendix 2 for scale items) measuring strategic (α = .674), altruistic (α = .830)
and exploitative (α = .726) motive attributions. Scale items were adapted from
Vlachos et al. (2009) and supported by qualitative responses from an exploratory
pilot study, which had confirmed that consumers do in fact infer these three CSR
motives for green demarketing messages.
After reporting their motive attributions for Zevo’s green demarketing strategy,
respondents completed measures of their attitudes towards both the brand (α = .976)
and the new product (α = .985), each measured using a three-item, seven-point
1
The initial data collection included 156 respondents. However, two attention-check items –
described at the end of this section – indicated that a large portion of the sample should be
eliminated from analysis due to data quality concerns.
semantic differential scale with the following anchors: bad–good, unfavourable–

favourable, negative–positive. Product performance expectations (α = .860) were
also measured with a scale averaged from a seven-point differential scale with the
following four items: extremely ineffective–extremely effective, poor overall–excellent
overall, very low quality–very high quality, very inexpensive–very expensive. Next,
respondents reported how important they felt environmental protection is to the
average American in purchase decisions on a seven-point Likert scale. This item was
intended as a proxy measure for the respondent’s personal importance that controls
for social desirability bias (Luchs et al., 2010). Finally, as attention checks to control
for data quality, respondents were asked to recall whether Zevo had a long or short
length of commitment to making sustainable products and a poor or excellent record
of environmental protection. Respondents were then thanked for their efforts and
directed to an unrelated study.
Results and analysis

Motive attributions and attitudes
Overall, motives were perceived as relatively strategic in nature (MStrat = 5.32,
SDStrat = 0.99). Paired sample t-tests indicated that respondents felt the brand’s
motives were more likely to be strategic compared with altruistic (MAlt = 4.35,
SDAlt = 1.26; t(77) = 5.355, p < .001) and exploitative (MExp = 4.42,
SDExp = 1.15; t(77) = 6.04, p < .001) regardless of environmental reputation or
length of commitment. This motive attribution pattern suggests that respondents
have a relatively sympathetic view of brand motivations in general and reflects the
principle of dual entitlement (Kahneman, Knetsch, & Thaler, 1986).
To further test respondents’ motive attributions, t-tests on each motive scale
(strategic, altruistic and exploitative) across environmental reputation and length of
commitment were performed. Although attributions of strategic motives were the
most strongly reported across reputation and commitment levels, respondents did
not report significantly different strategic attributions between high (MStrat = 5.31,
SDStrat = 1.05) and low (MStrat = 5.33, SDStrat = 0.92; t(76) = 0.109, p = .914)
environmental reputation conditions, or long (MStrat = 5.19, SDStrat = 1.10) or short
(MStrat = 5.43, SDStrat = 0.88; t(76) = 1.06, p = .295) commitment lengths. Further,
there was no significant interaction between these factors, all ps > .10. However, as
expected, when the brand had an excellent environmental reputation, respondents
felt it was more motivated by altruistic motives (MAlt = 4.79, SDAlt = 1.10) compared
with when the brand had a poor environmental reputation (MAlt = 3.89,
SDAlt = 1.30; t(76) = −3.29, p = .002), supporting H1a. When the commitment
was long, respondents attributed more altruistic motives (MAlt = 4.72, SDAlt = 1.11)
than when the commitment length was short (MAlt = 4.05, SDAlt = 1.33; t
(76) = −2.37, p = .02) (see Figure 2).
There were also significant differences across conditions for exploitative motive
attributions. A main effect of environmental reputation revealed that respondents
were less likely to attribute exploitative motives for green demarketing from brands
with an excellent environmental reputation (MExp = 4.13, SDExp = 1.02) compared
with when the environmental reputation was poor (MExp = 4.72, SDExp = 1.22; t
(76) = 2.31, p = .024). Therefore, we find support for H1c indicating that for brands
with better environmental reputation, motives are less likely to be perceived as
Figure 2 Main effects of environmental reputation on motive attributions (Study 1).
6.0
5.5
5.0
Excellent Reputation
4.5 Weak Reputation
4.0
3.5
Altruistic Strategic Exploitative
Motives Motives Motives
exploitative compared with poorer environmental reputation brands when

implementing a green demarketing strategy. Length of commitment did not
significantly affect exploitative motive attributions and there was not a significant
interaction between the factors, ps > .277 (see Figure 2).
Next, we tested whether environmental reputation and commitment length
affect attitudes about the brand and the product, as well as product performance
expectations. An independent samples t-test revealed that attitudes towards the
brand were significantly affected by the brand’s environmental reputation. When
Zevo’s environmental reputation was excellent, respondents felt more positively
towards the brand (MAttBrand = 5.12, SDAttBrand = 1.12) than when Zevo had a
poor environmental reputation (MAttBrand = 3.35, SDAttBrand = 1.49; t
(76) = −5.27, p < .001). Similarly, when Zevo had an excellent environmental
reputation, respondents had more positive attitudes towards the new trash bag
(MAttProd = 4.99, SDAttProd = 1.47) versus when Zevo had a poor environmental
reputation (MAttProd = 4.04, SDAttProd = 1.52; t(76) = −2.82, p = .006). Finally,
product performance expectations followed the same pattern with more positive
expectations when the environmental reputation was excellent
(MProdExpect = 4.79, SDProdExpect = 0.92) compared with poor
(MProdExpect = 3.87, SDProdExpect = 1.00; t(76) = −4.24, p < .001). Taken
together, these results provide strong support for H2abc. Again, we did not
observe any significant differences related to length of commitment (see
Figure 3).
Study 1 provided strong support for H1a, H1c and H2abc. It appears that
consumers are in fact making motive attributions about the intent behind brands’
green demarketing messages. Importantly, these attributions seem to be associated
with evaluations of the brand in general, as well as the product advertised, in that
they share a common predictor (i.e. environmental reputation). However, Study 1
was limited in that it relied on a small student sample, such that mediation analysis
Figure 3 Main effects of environmental reputation on attitudes and performance

evaluations (Study 1).
6.0
5.5
5.0
4.5 Excellent
Poor
4.0
3.5
3.0
Attitude Attitude Product
Brand Product Expectations
could not be reliably performed. Further, Study 1 utilised a fictional brand and
therefore could not account for consumers’ brand-related habits. Study 2 addresses
these limitations by examining consumer response to green demarketing with an
experiment testing habitual consumption patterns by using consumer brands in a
larger, more diverse population.
Study 2: consumer brands and habitual purchase patterns
Study 2 was designed to replicate findings from Study 1 – in terms of H1abc and
H2abc – in a different population and using actual brands (i.e. Glad and Hefty)
manufacturing the same product (i.e. trash bags). Study 2 also collected data from a
larger sample, allowing for a test of the meditational effect of motive attributions on
brand and product evaluations (H3abc). Further, Study 2 considered the important
role of habitual consumption patterns in consumers’ attitudes. We expected that,
overall, consumer attitudes would be more positive for a habitual brand (vs. a non-
habitual brand; H4abc) and that the pattern demonstrated in Study 1 would be
observed only when the brand was not habitually purchased (H5).
Methodology
Data were collected from 319 MTurk workers located in the United States (40.1%
female) with a mean age of 31.3 years (range: 18–72 years). The study was restricted
to those who habitually purchase either Glad or Hefty brand trash bags (see
Appendix 3 for HIT instructions). The respondents were randomly assigned to one
of eight conditions in a 2 (environmental reputation: excellent, poor) × 2
(commitment length: long, short) × 2 (brand purchase pattern: habitual vs. non-
habitual) between-subjects design. The former two factors were manipulated in an
identical manner to Study 1. In order to manipulate brand purchase pattern,

respondents were screened to ensure they purchased either Hefty or Glad trash
bags on a regular basis.
Similar to Study 1, respondents were informed that researchers were interested in
their responses to new product innovations and that they would be viewing a mock-
up of an advertisement for a new type of trash bag and asked to provide their
evaluations and opinions. Respondents were randomly assigned to habitual or non-
habitual brand purchase pattern conditions. They were asked to indicate which brand
they purchased most frequently: Hefty, Glad or a neither option (‘I don’t purchase
either of these brands’). All respondents who selected the neither option were
redirected to the end of the survey and therefore not included in the analysis.
Next, as a manipulation check, they reported their level of familiarity with the
brand they would see as a stimulus, which varied by condition, on a seven-point
semantic differential scale, from ‘not at all familiar’ to ‘very familiar’. For example, if
a respondent was assigned to the non-habitual purchase condition and indicated that
Glad was purchased more frequently, the respondent would report the familiarity
with Hefty, whereas a respondent in that condition who selected Hefty as their
habitual brand would evaluate Glad. For the remainder of the study, those assigned
to the habitual condition were provided information that matched their stated
habitually purchased brand, that is if they selected Glad (Hefty), the provided
information and advertisement were framed as Glad’s (Hefty’s). Those in the non-
habitual condition were provided with information and visuals for the other brand
(Glad purchasers saw Hefty stimuli and vice versa). Information about the brand’s
environmental reputation and length of commitment were presented in an identical
fashion to Study 1.
Next, a mock-up of the green demarketing advertisement was displayed for at least
20 seconds. The ‘ad’ was very similar to the Zevo stimulus used in Study 1, but
instead featured either Glad or Hefty’s logo, depending on the condition. The copy
was also the same as Study 1 and identical across conditions, other than the brand
logo. Respondents next indicated their motive attributions (altruistic, strategic and
exploitative), brand and product attitudes and product performance expectations, as
described in the previous study.
Two manipulation check items asked the extent to which the respondent agreed
with the statements ‘Glad (Hefty) has been making environmentally friendly products
for a long time’ and ‘Glad (Hefty) has a good environmental reputation’ on a seven-
point Likert scale, ranging from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’. An opened-
ended response item was also provided to allow respondents to provide any other
information about the study they wished. This was mainly to ensure that respondents
did not question the accuracy of the environmental reputation and commitment
length data that were provided in the study, which was a concern since real brands
that were familiar to the respondents were used in this study.2 Respondents were next
debriefed that the information provided in this study about Glad/Hefty was not
factual, but was created for the purposes of this study and intended to assist in
understanding consumer perceptions of new product innovations. Respondents
provided their estimates of the importance of environmental protection measured
2
Only one respondent indicated doubt in the legitimacy of the study information prior to the
debrief statement.
with the same item used in Study 1. Finally, respondents provided demographic
information and were thanked for their participation.
Results and discussion

Manipulation checks
To ensure that manipulations were successful, independent samples t-tests were
performed. Respondents in the long commitment condition (M = 4.56,
SD = 1.59) indicated perceptions of significantly longer commitment to making
environmentally friendly products than those in the short commitment condition
(M = 3.49, SD = 1.74; t(317) = 5.735, p < .001). Similarly, participants in the
excellent environmental reputation condition (M = 5.11, SD = 1.31) indicated that

they perceived the brand as having a significantly better environmental reputation
than those in the poor environmental reputation condition (M = 2.62, SD = 1.43; t
(317) = 16.207, p < .001). By design, the study was restricted to those who
habitually purchased one of two brands (Glad and Hefty) and participants self-
reported which brand was their actual habitual purchase. Self-reported habitually
purchased brands were roughly even in the sample, with 58% choosing Glad and
42% selecting Hefty. Therefore, we manipulated habitual purchase pattern by
randomly assigning respondents to stimuli that either matched or did not match
their self-reported habitually purchased brand. As a check of the manipulation, we
compared the brand familiarity of participants in the habitual condition (M = 5.69,
SD = 1.09) with that of participants in the non-habitual condition (M = 5.42,
SD = 1.21; t(317) = 2.106, p = .036), indicating that the former group was
indeed more familiar with the brand they would subsequently evaluate in the study
compared with the latter group.
Descriptives and main effects of environmental reputation

As in Study 1, paired sample t-tests revealed that overall motive attributions were
perceived as highly strategic (MStrat = 5.56, SDStrat = 0.85) compared with both
altruistic (MAlt = 4.50, SDAlt = 1.36; t(318) = 11.790, p < .001) and exploitative
motive attributions (MExp = 4.41, SDExp = 1.35; t(318) = 14.717, p < .001).3 More
importantly, the results of this study provided further support for H1 and H2 in a
new population and considering actual consumer purchase patterns of real brands.
Two-way ANCOVAs, treating brand familiarity and importance of environmental
protection as covariates, demonstrated that respondents in the excellent
environmental reputation condition attributed more altruistic (MAlt = 4.85,
SDAlt = 1.24) and strategic motives (MStrat = 5.66, SDStrat = 0.86) compared with
participants in the poor environmental reputation condition (MAlt = 4.15,
SDAlt = 1.38; MStrat = 5.45, SDStrat = 0.82; both Fs > 5.578, both ps < .019).
Conversely, respondents in the excellent environmental reputation condition
(MExp = 4.13, SDExp = 1.39) attributed less exploitative motives than did those in
the poor environmental reputation condition (MExp = 4.69, SDExp = 1.24; F(1,
309) = 13.664, p < .001).
3
MANCOVA showed no differences in any reported dependent variables between groups
based on brand choice (all ps > .142) and no significant interactions between brand choice
and habit (all ps > .245).
As expected, the results of Study 2 also indicated that respondents in the excellent
environmental reputation condition held more positive attitudes towards the brand
(MAttBrand = 5.61, SDAttBrand = 1.13), attitudes towards the product (MAttProd = 5.53,
SDAttProd = 1.28) and higher product performance expectations (MProdExpect = 5.17,
SDProdExpect = 0.84) than did respondents in the poor environmental reputation
condition (MAttBrand = 4.82, SDAttBrand = 1.40; MAttProd = 4.90, SDAttProd = 1.52;
MProdExpect = 4.85, SDProdExpect = 0.97; all Fs > 9.877, all ps < .002). Thus, Study 2
replicated support for H1a, H1c and H2abc, and provided initial support for H1b in a
larger sample of American consumers from the general population, in the context of
real (as opposed to fictional) brands (see Figure 4). The results did not suggest a main
effect of length of commitment on any of these six dependent variables (all ps >
.517) or any interactions between length of commitment and environmental

reputation (all ps > .216), which is consistent with findings from Study 1.
Figure 4 Main effects of environmental reputation (Study 2).
6.0
5.5
5.0
Excellent
4.5 Poor
4.0
3.5
Altruistic Strategic Exploitative Attitude Attitude Product
Motives Motives Motives Brand Product Expectations
Mediation analysis: Environmental reputation ! motive attributions ! consumer

attitudes
In order to test H3abc, we constructed three mediation models (one each for the
following three outcomes: attitudes towards the brand, attitudes towards the product
and product performance expectations) with the PROCESS macro (Hayes, 2013) using
20,000 bootstrapped samples. In all three models, brand familiarity and the importance of
environmental protection measure were again treated as covariates, environmental
reputation was entered as the independent variable and the three measured motive
inferences were entered as potential mediators. In general, results (see Figure 5) suggest
strong support for H3abc.
The first model (Figure 5a) examined attitudes towards the brand as the outcome.
The model suggests that there was a direct effect of environmental reputation on
attitudes towards the brand (b = .274, SE = .108, p = .012). More importantly, this
effect was partially mediated by strategic (b = .036, SE = .022, 95% CI [0.005,
Figure 5 Motive mediation analysis. (a) Model 1: Attitudes towards the brand as
outcome. (b) Model 2: Attitudes towards the product as outcome. (c) Model 3:
Product performance expectations as outcome.
*Path significant at p < .05 (two-tailed); **path significant at p < .01 (two-tailed). Brand
familiarity and importance of environmental protection are treated as covariates.
(a)
Strategic
9* Motive .16
.21 )
2 Attributions (.0 4*
(.09 68
)
.686** Altruistic .484**

Environmental (.144) (.050) Attitude toward
Motive
Reputation –.5 ** Brand
3 Attributions 36
(.1 3** –.2 52)
47
) (.0
Exploitative
Motive
Attributions
(b) Strategic
9* Motive .23
.21 ) (.0 6*
(.09
2 Attributions 85
)

Environmental (.144) (.064) Attitude toward
Motive
Reputation –.5 66
** Product
3 Attributions –.2 66)
(.1 3**
47
) (.0
Exploitative
Motive
Attributions
(c) Strategic
9* Motive .13
.21 )
2 Attributions (.0 3*
(.09 59
)

Environmental (.144) (.045) Product
Motive .
Reputation –.5 n.s Expectations
3
(.1 3**
Attributions 53
– 0 .045)
.
47 (
)
Exploitative
Motive
Attributions
0.097]), altruistic (b = .332, SE = .087, 95% CI [0.184, 0.525]) and exploitative

motive attributions (b = .126, SE = .042, 95% CI [0.059, 0.227]). That is, an
excellent environmental reputation was associated with increased (decreased)
strategic and altruistic (exploitative) motive attributions, which in turn led to more
favourable attitudes towards the brand.
In the second model (Figure 5b), attitudes towards the product was treated as the
dependent variable. This model failed to support a direct effect of environmental
reputation on attitudes towards the product (b = .141, SE = .137, p = .304). Thus,
the aforementioned main effect of environmental reputation on attitudes towards the
product was fully mediated by strategic (b = .052, SE = .030, 95% CI [0.009,
0.129]), altruistic (b = .277, SE = .085, 95% CI [0.138, 0.478]) and exploitative
motive attributions (b = .142, SE = .049, 95% CI [0.064, 0.261]). Therefore, the
pattern of mediated effects in this model was qualitatively identical to that of the first
model described, but quantitatively larger.
The third model (Figure 5c) treated product performance expectations as the
outcome variable and closely resembled the second model in terms of
configuration. Specifically, this model failed to support a direct effect of
environmental reputation on product performance expectations (b = .056,
SE = .094, p = .550), indicating that the aforementioned main effect of
environmental reputation on product performance expectations was fully mediated
by strategic (b = .029, SE = .019, 95% CI [0.004, 0.081]) and altruistic motive
attributions (b = .195, SE = .056, 95% CI [0.104, 0.325]). However, surprisingly,
this model did not support exploitative motive attributions as a mediator (b = .028,
SE = .027, 95% CI [−0.015, 0.094]). In other words, an excellent environmental

reputation was associated with increased strategic and altruistic motive attributions,
which in turn positively influenced product performance expectations; exploitative
motive attributions, in contrast, did not mediate this effect. Thus, supporting H3abc
and consistent with Ellen et al. (2006), motive attributions were found to be either
full or partial mediators of the relationship between environmental reputation and
consumer attitudes and expectations.
The role of brand habits

An important extension of Study 2 is that its design accounts for consumers’ habitual
purchase patterns in a green demarketing context. As explained before, consumers
tend to favour the brands they habitually purchase over other competing brands.
Indeed, consistent with this expectation and as predicted by H4, participants in the
habitual condition reported greater attitudes towards the brand (MAttBrand = 5.44,
SDAttBrand = 1.17), attitudes towards the product (MAttProd = 5.43, SDAttProd = 1.36)
and product performance expectations (MProdExpect = 5.18, SDProdExpect = 0.85) than
did participants in the non-habitual condition (MAttBrand = 5.00, SDAttBrand = 1.44;
MAttProd = 5.00, SDAttProd = 1.49; MProdExpect = 4.83, SDProdExpect = 0.96; all Fs >
6.208, all ps < .013) (see Figure 6).
Figure 6 Main effect of habit (Study 2).
6.0
5.5
5.0 Habitual Brand

Non-habitual Brand
4.5
4.0
Attitude Attitude Product
Brand Product Expectations
In order to test H5, a series of two-way ANCOVAs was performed, using the same
covariates as described. We expected habit to moderate the relationships between
environmental reputation and both motive attributions and consumer attitudes and
expectations, such that only for non-habitually purchased brands would there be a
significant effect. Surprisingly, no such interactions between habit and environmental
reputation were found (all ps > .293). This unanticipated pattern of results
demonstrates the power of environmental reputation in a green demarketing
context. Even when considering consumers’ brand habits, which were shown in our
data to have pronounced effects on attitudes and expectations, the positive effect of
environmental reputation on motive attributions and consumer attitudes remained
consistent.
Results of Study 2 provide more support for the importance of the environmental
reputation of the brand engaged in a green demarketing strategy. Results provided
further support for H1 and H2, demonstrating that consumers use information about
the green demarketing brand’s environmental reputation to make motive attributions
and judgements about the brand and product. Mediation analysis provided evidence
that a brand’s environmental reputation may affect downstream consumer outcomes
because it influences consumers’ perceptions of the brand’s motives behind the green
demarketing strategy (H3). When considering habitual consumption, we
demonstrated that, all else equal, when habitually purchased brands engage in
green demarketing, consumers hold more positive attitudes and expectations
compared with when the brand is not the habitual purchase (H4). However,
habitual brand purchase did not act as a buffer from a poor environmental
reputation. Although H5 was not supported, this only underscores the importance
of a brand’s reputation of environmental protection when considering implementing
a green demarketing strategy.
General discussion, conclusions and future directions
This article takes a necessary first step in exploring the newly proposed, novel concept
of green demarketing. A green demarketing strategy offers the potential for socially
responsible marketing managers to contribute to the sustainability movement by
attenuating some of the ecological harm caused by traditional demand creation
activities while maintaining profitability. These messages are meant to discourage
category level consumption (i.e. buy less overall) as a way to protect the environment
through purchasing the focal brand’s product that either lasts longer or performs better.
Because this strategy has so many potential benefits for brands and society overall, it is
critical to understand and predict consumers’ reactions to such strategies.
Taken together, Studies 1 and 2 provide evidence that consumers do indeed make
different motive attributions about green demarketing messages depending on
characteristics of the brand, specifically environmental reputation. In support of
our hypotheses, consumers attribute more altruistic motives to brands with
excellent environmental reputations and corresponding higher exploitative motives
for poor-reputation brands in response to a green demarketing message. Further,
environmental reputation influenced consumers’ attitudes towards the brand and the
product advertised, as well as their product performance expectations. Although
length of commitment has been related to motive attributions for different CSR
activities, we found no evidence of its importance in green demarketing. This may
be good news for brands that wish to improve environmental practices. It may be that
consumers place more weight on the current reputation, rather than the length of the
commitment in relation to green demarketing strategy, meaning brands could see
positive results from efforts quickly. Further, although brand-related habits are a
strong driver of consumption behaviour and did indeed predict attitudes towards
green demarketing brands in our research, they did not affect the impact of
environmental reputation on these consumer outcomes. Regardless of whether the
brand was a consumer’s regular purchase or not, the relationships described hold.
This indicates that brands may be able to induce switching behaviours by engaging in
a green demarketing strategy. More research is needed to test these possibilities.
For marketing managers considering implementing a green demarketing strategy,
evaluating the current consumer perceptions of the brand is very important. The
evidence from the studies reported herein suggests that consumers are making motive
attributions in response to green demarketing messages and that these attributions
can in turn affect attitudes and opinions about the products. It appears that
environmental reputation significantly impacts not only motive attributions but also
consumer judgements about the green demarketing brand and the product. For
brands already perceived as ‘green’ to ‘preach to the choir’ is laudable, but the
positive change on a societal level is highly limited. Therefore, we would all be
well-served if future research focuses on how neutral and poor-reputation brands
that are genuinely attempting to make a change can do so successfully. Green
demarketing by poor-reputation brands making a genuine attempt at sustainability
must be rewarded by consumers in order to ensure that companies continue to strive
to decrease ecological harm. Further research should explore how brands might be
able to avoid exploitative motive attributions.
The preliminary steps taken in this research can be extended in many ways beyond
extensions in the poor-reputation brand arena. It is also likely that individual
differences may influence motive attributions for a green demarketing strategy. It is
possible that consumers high in environmental protection concern and consumption
practices may infer higher altruistic motives in response to this sort of message based
on an accessibility-based model of inference making (Higgins, King, & Mavin, 1982)
whereby consumers possessing trait environmentalism are more likely to ascribe this
trait to others, including brands. However, it also may be the case that this type of
consumer may perceive less altruistic motives (particularly from brands with
currently poor reputations) due to a more critical analysis of the green demarketing
message brought on by increased levels of topic knowledge (Friestad & Wright,
1994) and high involvement with the issue of sustainability (Petty, Cacioppo, &
Schumann, 1983). Other individual differences such as income level and persuasion
knowledge (Friestad & Wright, 1994) may also moderate the relationship between
motive attributions and purchase intent. How green demarketing messages are
perceived across individuals is very important for brands making targeting
decisions. Current technology is such that through data mining of stated consumer
preferences, it is feasible that brands can display advertising content to consumers
who are most likely to be receptive to green demarketing messages.
Another interesting finding that necessitates further research is the length of
commitment’s lack of influence as a predictive factor of motive attributions and
consumer attitudes. Lay intuition suggests that a company that has a lengthy (vs.
short) track record of commitment to sustainable behaviour should be perceived as
more genuine in their green demarketing efforts, as such a message is congruent with
the brand’s image. Yet, consistent with the findings of Ellen et al. (2006), we found
the effects of environmental reputation to be quite pronounced, whereas length of
commitment appeared ineffectual. Future research should examine this intriguing
discrepancy in greater detail. One possible explanation may be that a cue-interaction
effect (Van Osselaer & Alba, 2000) occurs whereby the environmental reputation
serves as a salient cue and competes with consumers’ ability to use other information
(e.g. length of commitment) to draw inferences.
It is also possible that reported attitudes and evaluations may not reflect actual
consumption behaviour. When researching socially desirable activities, such as
engaging in environmentally responsible behaviours, it is a concern that responses
may be biased with demand effects. Exploring green demarketing messages in a field
experiment would add strength to our findings here, as well as providing an actual
behavioural measure of purchases.
We believe the green demarketing strategy construct has the potential to achieve
positive outcomes for brands, consumers and society as a whole. Although the
research reported herein is only an incremental step in starting the exploration
process, it is our hope that this work motivates more scholarly and managerial
interest in this strategy. Green demarketing can be a sustainable business strategy
and one that deserves increased attention.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
References
Bagozzi, R. P. (1992). The self-regulation of attitudes, intentions, and behavior. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 55, 178–204. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2786945
Belz, F. M., & Peattie, K. (2012). Sustainability marketing: A global perspective (2nd ed.).
Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental
social psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 1–62). New York, NY: Academic Press. doi:10.1016/S0065-
2601(08)60024-6
Bénabou, R., & Tirole, J. (2005). Incentives and prosocial behavior (Working Paper
No. w11535). Unpublished manuscript. doi:10.3386/w11535
Botsman, R., & Rogers, R. (2010). What’s mine is yours: The rise of collaborative
consumption. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
Bridges, C. M., & Wilhelm, W. B. (2008). Going beyond green: The “why and how” of
integrating sustainability into the marketing curriculum. Journal of Marketing Education,
30, 33–46. doi:10.1177/0273475307312196
Brown, T. J., & Dacin, P. A. (1997). The company and the product: Corporate associations and
consumer product responses. Journal of Marketing, 61(1), 68–84. doi:10.2307/1252190
Chatzidakis, A., & Lee, M. S. (2013). Anti-consumption as the study of reasons against. Journal
of Macromarketing, 33, 190–203. doi:10.1177/0276146712462892
Cherrier, H. (2009). Anti-consumption discourses and consumer-resistant identities. Journal of
Business Research, 62, 181–190. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.01.025
Cherrier, H., Szuba, M., & Özçaglar-Toulouse, N. (2012). Barriers to downward carbon
emission: Exploring sustainable consumption in the face of the glass floor. Journal of
Marketing Management, 28(3–4), 397–419. doi:10.1080/0267257X.2012.658835
Craig‐Lees, M., & Hill, C. (2002). Understanding voluntary simplifiers. Psychology &
Marketing, 19, 187–210. doi:10.1002/mar.10009
Cullwick, D. (1975). Positioning demarketing strategy. The Journal of Marketing, 39(2), 51–57.
Ellen, P. S., Webb, D. J., & Mohr, L. A. (2006). Building corporate associations: Consumer
attributions for corporate socially responsible programs. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 34, 147–157. doi:10.1177/0092070305284976
Erdem, T. (1996). A dynamic analysis of market structure based on panel data. Marketing
Science, 15(4), 359–378. doi:10.1287/mksc.15.4.359
Federico-O’Murchu, L. (2014, December 5). Why can’t Apple meet demand for the new
iPhone 6? Yahoo! Finance. Retrieved February 5, 2015, from http://finance.yahoo.com/
news/why-cant-apple-meet-demand-204124020.html
Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The persuasion knowledge model: How people cope with
persuasion attempts. Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 1–31. Retrieved from http://www.
jstor.org/stable/2489738
Galvagno, M. (2011). The intellectual structure of the anti-consumption and consumer
resistance field: An author co-citation analysis. European Journal of Marketing, 45,
1688–1701. doi:10.1108/03090561111167441
Gerstner, E., Hess, J., & Chu, W. (1993). Demarketing as a differentiation strategy. Marketing
Letters, 4, 49–57. doi:10.1007/BF00994187
Gierl, H., & Huettl, V. (2010). Are scarce products always more attractive? The interaction of
different types of scarcity signals with products’ suitability for conspicuous consumption.
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27, 225–235. doi:10.1016/j.
ijresmar.2010.02.002
Glad. (2014). Our story. Oakland, CA: The Glad Products Company. Retrieved January 5,
from http://www.glad.com/trash/our-story/
Hawken, P., Lovins, A., & Lovins, L. H. (2000). Natural capitalism: Creating the next
Industrial Revolution. Boston, MA: Back Bay Books.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis:
A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Higgins, E. T., King, G. A., & Mavin, G. H. (1982). Individual construct accessibility and
subjective impressions and recall. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(1),
35–47. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.43.1.35
Hutter, K., & Hoffmann, S. (2013). Carrotmob and anti-consumption: Same motives but
different willingness to make sacrifices? Journal of Macromarketing, 33, 217–231.
doi:10.1177/0276146712470457
Iyer, R., & Muncy, J. A. (2009). Purpose and object of anti-consumption. Journal of Business
Research, 62, 160–168. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.01.023
Kahle, L. R., & Gurel-Atay, E. (2014). Communicating sustainability for the green economy.
New York, NY: ME Sharpe.
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. (1986). Fairness as a constraint on profit seeking:
Entitlements in the market. The American Economic Review, 76, 728–741. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1806070
Kotler, P. (1973). The major tasks of marketing management. Journal of Marketing, 37(4),
42–49. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1250357
Kotler, P. (1974). Marketing during periods of shortage. Journal of Marketing, 38(3), 20–29.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1249846
Kotler, P. (2011). Reinventing marketing to manage the environmental imperative. Journal of
Marketing, 75(4), 132–135. doi:10.1509/jmkg.75.4.132
Kotler, P., & Levy, S. (1971). Demarketing, yes, demarketing. Harvard Business Review, 49(6),
74–80. Retrieved from EBSCO, Accession Number: 3866941.
Laufer, W. S. (2003). Social accountability and corporate greenwashing. Journal of Business
Ethics, 43(3), 253–261. doi:10.1023/A:1022962719299
Lee, M. S., Fernandez, K. V., & Hyman, M. R. (2009). Anti-consumption: An overview and
research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 62, 145–147. doi:10.1016/j.
jbusres.2008.01.021
Lee, M. S., Motion, J., & Conroy, D. (2009). Anti-consumption and brand avoidance. Journal
of Business Research, 62, 169–180. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.01.024
Luchs, M. G., Naylor, R. W., Irwin, J. R., & Raghunathan, R. (2010). The sustainability
liability: Potential negative effects of ethicality on product preference. Journal of
Marketing, 74(5), 18–31. doi:10.1509/jmkg.74.5.18
Luo, X., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2006). Corporate social responsibility, customer satisfaction,
and market value. Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 1–18. doi:10.1509/jmkg.70.4.1
Lynn, M. (1991). Scarcity effects on value: A quantitative review of the commodity theory
literature. Psychology & Marketing, 8, 43–57. doi:10.1002/mar.4220080105
McEachern, M. G., & Carrigan, M. (2012). Revisiting contemporary issues in green/ethical

marketing: An introduction to the special issue. Journal of Marketing Management, 28(3–4),
189–194. doi:10.1080/0267257X.2012.666877
Medway, D., & Warnaby, G. (2008). Alternative perspectives on marketing and the place
brand. European Journal of Marketing, 42, 641–653. doi:10.1108/03090560810862552
Medway, D., Warnaby, G., & Dharni, S. (2010). Demarketing places: Rationales and
strategies. Journal of Marketing Management, 27(1–2), 124–142. doi:10.1080/
02672571003719096
Merriam-Webster. (2015). Marketing [Def. 2]. (n.d.). In Merriam-Webster Online. Retrieved
February 5, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marketing
Miklós-Thal, J., & Zhang, J. (2013). (De) marketing to manage consumer quality inferences.
Journal of Marketing Research, 50, 55–69. doi:10.1509/jmr.11.0432
Newton, T., & Harte, G. (1997). Green business: Technicist kitsch? Journal of Management
Studies, 34(1), 75–98. doi:10.1111/1467-6486.00043
Ornstein, S. I., & Hanssens, D. M. (1985). Alcohol control laws and the consumption of
distilled spirits and beer. Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 200–213. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/254353
Park, C. W., Jaworski, B. J., & Maclnnis, D. J. (1986). Strategic brand concept-image
management. Journal of Marketing, 50(4), 135–145. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/
stable/1251291
Patagonia. (2014). The responsible economy. Patagonia, Ventura, CA. Retrieved January 5,
from http://www.patagonia.com/us/patagonia.go?assetid=1865
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to
advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer
Research, 10, 135–146. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2488919
Pratkanis, A. R., Breckler, S. J., & Greenwald, A. G. (2014). Attitude structure and function.
New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Princen, T. (2010). Treading softly: Paths to ecological order. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Rook, E. (2015, January 29). Tired of newcomers, Portlanders make anti-tourism video.
Retrieved February 7, from http://www.bendsource.com/Bent/archives/2015/01/29/tired-
of-newcomers-portlanders-make-anti-tourism-video
Roy, R., Chintagunta, P. K., & Haldar, S. (1996). A framework for investigating habits, “The
Hand of the Past,” and heterogeneity in dynamic brand choice. Marketing Science, 15(3),
280–299. doi:10.1287/mksc.15.3.280
Schumacher, E. (1989). Small is beautiful: Economics as if people mattered. New York, NY:
Harper Perennial.
Seetharaman, P. B. (2004). Modeling multiple sources of state dependence in random utility
models: A distributed lag approach. Marketing Science, 23, 263–271. doi:10.1287/
mksc.1030.0024
Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer
reactions to corporate social responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 225–243.
doi:10.1509/jmkr.38.2.225.18838
Shama, A. (1978). Management & consumers in an era of stagflation. Journal of Marketing, 42
(3), 43–52. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1250533
Shiu, E., Hassan, L. M., & Walsh, G. (2009). Demarketing tobacco through governmental
policies – the 4Ps revisited. Journal of Business Research, 62, 269–278. doi:10.1016/j.
jbusres.2008.01.034
Simonson, I. (1990). The effect of purchase quantity and timing on variety-seeking behavior.
Journal of Marketing Research, 27, 150–162. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/
3172842
Sodhi, K. (2011). Has marketing come full circle? Demarketing for sustainability. Business
Strategy Series, 12, 177–185. doi:10.1509/jmkr.38.2.225.18838

Tyskeng, S., & Finnveden, G. (2010). Comparing energy use and environmental impacts of
recycling and waste incineration. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 136, 744–748.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.0000206
Van Osselaer, S. M., & Alba, J. W. (2000). Consumer learning and brand equity. Journal of
Consumer Research, 27, 1–16. doi:10.1086/314305
Vlachos, P. A., Tsamakos, A., Vrechopoulos, A., & Avramidis, P. (2009). Corporate social
responsibility: Attributions, loyalty and the mediating role of trust. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 37, 170–180. doi:10.1007/s11747-008-0117-x
Wansink, B., & Huckabee, M. (2005). De-marketing obesity. California Management Review,
47(4), 6–18. Retrieved from http://mindlesseating.org/pdf/DeMktg_Obesity-CMR_2005.
pdf
Wood, W., & Neal, D. T. (2009). The habitual consumer. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19
(4), 579–592. doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2009.08.003
Appendix 1 Stimulus designed by the authors for all conditions (Study 1).
Appendix 2 Scale items for motive scales (studies 1 and 2).
Motive Items
Strategic (Zevo/Glad/Hefty) is trying to increase profits.
(Zevo/Glad/Hefty) is trying to gain new customers.
(Zevo/Glad/Hefty) is trying to please its current customers.
Altruistic (Zevo/Glad/Hefty) feels morally obligated to help the environment.
(Zevo/Glad/Hefty) is trying to give something back to society.
(Zevo/Glad/Hefty) genuinely cares about the well-being of the
environment.
Exploitative (Zevo/Glad/Hefty) is just trying to make its product seem more attractive
so they can charge a higher price.

(Zevo/Glad/Hefty) is just taking advantage of the ‘green’ trend to make
more money.
(Zevo/Glad/Hefty) does not genuinely care about the environment.
Appendix 3 Full HIT instructions (Study 2)

We are interested in people’s opinions about product innovation. In this survey, you
will see a print advertisement and respond to a few general statements. Please keep in
mind that your responses are completely anonymous and will only be considered in
aggregate. Select the link below to complete the survey. At the end of the survey, you
will receive a code to paste into the box below to receive credit for taking our survey.
For the purposes of this survey, we are only interested in participants who
habitually purchase Glad or Hefty brand trash bags. If you do not regularly
purchase either Glad or Hefty brand trash bags, do not take this survey as you will
not be paid for your work.
Make sure to leave this window open as you complete the survey. When you are
finished, you will return to this page to paste the code into the box. Don’t forget to
return to the original survey and submit it.
About the authors

Catherine A. Armstrong Soule is an assistant professor in marketing at Western Washington
University. She received her Ph.D. in consumer behaviour from the University of Oregon, USA.
Catherine teaches courses in marketing communications, behavioural pricing and consumer
behaviour among others. Her main research interests are in sustainable marketing practices,
psychological pricing and numerosity and consumer deception protection.
Corresponding author: Catherine A. Armstrong Soule, College of Business and Economics,
Western Washington University, 516 High Street, MS 9073, Bellingham, WA 98225, USA.
T 406-544-8116
E cat.armstrongsoule@wwu.edu
Brandon J. Reich is a doctoral student specialising in consumer behaviour in the Department of

Marketing at the University of Oregon, USA. His research focuses on factors influencing
consumer inference making in sustainable marketing contexts. He is also interested in anti-
consumption, consumers’ attributions of blame and the connection between marketing and
social justice concerns. He teaches courses in marketing research and consumer behaviour.
View publication stats

MMGreendemarketing

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MMGreendemarketing

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Less is more: Is a green demarketing strategy sustainable?

Article in Journal of Marketing Management · January 2015

Catherine Armstrong Soule Brandon Reich

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Marketing Management

Less is more: is a green demarketing

Click for updates

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2015.1059874

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Less is more: is a green demarketing strategy

Catherine A. Armstrong Soule, College of Business and Economics,

Abstract The research explores consumers’ perceptions of the business

Keywords green marketing; demarketing; advertising; corporate social

Rachel Botsman and Roo Rodgers (2010, p. 39)

Authorship of this article is shared equally.

© 2015 Westburn Publishers Ltd.

Marketing strategy and demand suppression

Marketing strategies are traditionally focused on creating demand for a product or

suppressing demand is a sensible marketing management strategy. Originally coined

CSR and sustainability

Anti-consumption and the environment

It must first be clarified that anti-consumption is not necessarily driven by pro-social

requires a reduction in the quantity of consumption, therefore epitomising green

When a brand employs a green demarketing strategy, how do consumers respond? In

H1a: Consumers will attribute increased (decreased) altruistic motives to

H2: When a brand engaged in green demarketing has an excellent (poor)

Because a green demarketing strategy can be seen as an attempt to reduce demand

Habits in general may be defined as ‘a specific type of automaticity characterized by a

habit-based consumption choices very likely in ordinary purchase situations, a result

In the following sections, we present a summary of two studies. Study 1 is a

Study 1: green demarketing motive attributions and evaluations

Study 1 was developed as a preliminary investigation of consumer reactions to

and length of commitment to ecological protection rather than measuring existing

long, short) factor randomised design between subjects. Environmental reputation

semantic differential scale with the following anchors: bad–good, unfavourable–

Results and analysis

Figure 2 Main effects of environmental reputation on motive attributions (Study 1).

exploitative compared with poorer environmental reputation brands when

Figure 3 Main effects of environmental reputation on attitudes and performance

Study 2: consumer brands and habitual purchase patterns

identical manner to Study 1. In order to manipulate brand purchase pattern,

Results and discussion

excellent environmental reputation condition (M = 5.11, SD = 1.31) indicated that

Descriptives and main effects of environmental reputation

.517) or any interactions between length of commitment and environmental

Figure 4 Main effects of environmental reputation (Study 2).

Mediation analysis: Environmental reputation ! motive attributions ! consumer

.686** Altruistic .484**

.686** Altruistic .404**

.686** Altruistic .284**

0.097]), altruistic (b = .332, SE = .087, 95% CI [0.184, 0.525]) and exploitative

SE = .027, 95% CI [−0.015, 0.094]). In other words, an excellent environmental

The role of brand habits

Figure 6 Main effect of habit (Study 2).

5.0 Habitual Brand

General discussion, conclusions and future directions

McEachern, M. G., & Carrigan, M. (2012). Revisiting contemporary issues in green/ethical

Strategy Series, 12, 177–185. doi:10.1509/jmkr.38.2.225.18838

Appendix 2 Scale items for motive scales (studies 1 and 2).

so they can charge a higher price.

Appendix 3 Full HIT instructions (Study 2)

About the authors

.686 Altruistic .484

.686 Altruistic .404

.686 Altruistic .284