Oppositional loyalty as a brand identity-driven

outcome: a conceptual framework and

empirical evidence
Junyun Liao
Department of Marketing, School of Management, Jinan University, Guangzhou, China
Xuebing Dong
School of Management, Shanghai University, Shanghai, China
Ziwei Luo
Institute for Enterprise Development, Jinan University, Guangzhou, China, and
Rui Guo
Department of Business Analytics, School of Economics and Business Administration,
Saint Mary’s College of California, Moraga, California, USA

Abstract
Purpose – Oppositional loyalty toward rival brands is prevalent. Although its antecedents have increasingly received scholarly attention, the
literature is rather disparate. Based on identity theory, this study aims to propose that oppositional loyalty is a brand identity-driven outcome and
provides a unified framework for understanding the formation and activation of brand identity in influencing oppositional loyalty.
Design/methodology/approach – Structural equation modeling was used to test the theoretical framework based on an online survey of 329
brand community members. Multigroup analysis was used to test the moderating effect of inter-consumer brand rivalry and brand community
engagement.
Findings – The results show that self-brand similarity, brand prestige and brand uniqueness lead to consumers’ brand identity (i.e. consumer-brand
identification), which, in turn, facilitates oppositional loyalty. Furthermore, the results indicate that inter-consumer brand rivalry and brand
community engagement are identity-salient situations that strengthen the relationship between consumer-brand identification and oppositional
loyalty.
Practical implications – Identity has great power in shaping consumer behaviors. Fostering consumer-brand identification is critical for firms to
prevent consumers from switching to competing brands. Inter-consumer brand rivalry and brand community engagement can help firms consolidate
their customer base by evoking consumers’ brand identity.
Originality/value – This investigation makes theoretical contributions by providing a unified theoretical framework to model the development of
oppositional loyalty based on identity theory.
Keywords Identity theory, Brand communities, Brand identification, Consumer-brand identification, Oppositional loyalty,
Inter-consumer brand rivalry, Brand community engagement
Paper type Research paper

Introduction online brand communities (Thompson and Sinha, 2008; Kuo

Oppositional loyalty is a phenomenon in which consumers of a
brand hold negative and opposing views on and even show
hostile behaviors toward rival brands (Marticotte et al., 2016;
Kuo and Hou, 2017). Such oppositional loyalty is more
prevalent than ever before (Berendt et al., 2018; Ilhan et al.,
2018). For instance, Ilhan et al. (2018) reveal that it is common
for consumers of a brand to attack its rival brands on social
media. Particularly, oppositional loyalty is often observed in
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald
Insight at: https://www.emerald.com/insight/1061-0421.htm
Journal of Product & Brand Management
© Emerald Publishing Limited [ISSN 1061-0421]
[DOI 10.1108/JPBM-08-2019-2511]
and Hou, 2017), spanning many industries such as mobile
phones, computers and automobiles. Consumers’ shared
The authors gratefully acknowledge financial support from the National
Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) (No.71802097, 71702097
& 71602072). This project is also partially supported by Jinan University
Management School Funding Program (No. GY18004) and Institute for
Enterprise Development, Jinan University, Guangdong Province
(2019GBAZD06 & 2020CP03). We are grateful to the anonymous
reviewers for their insightful feedback during the review process. We also
thank the editors of the Journal of Product & Brand Management. The
authors contributed equally to this work.
Received 11 August 2019
Revised 16 December 2019
20 May 2020
7 September 2020
8 October 2020
Accepted 12 October 2020
 A conceptual framework and empirical evidence
Junyun Liao et al.
negativity toward brands even gives rise to the proliferation of
anti-brand communities (Dessart et al., 2020; Naumann et al.,
2020). In social media, fans of a pair of competing brands often
criticize each other’s brand, state that they will not buy the rival
brand and even persuade friends around them not to buy the
rival brand. Hickman and Ward (2007) demonstrate that brand
community members hold hostile attitudes and behaviors
toward rival brands, including “negative stereotyping,” which
refers to consumers’ negative views of people with a specific
characteristic (Tiggemann and Anesbury, 2000), “trash talk,”
which refers to negative communication about a rival brand
provoked by a sense of inter-group rivalry, and even
schadenfreude, which refers to the extent to which one feels
pleased in response to the downfall of another brand or product
(Sundie et al., 2009). Ewing et al. (2013) vividly demonstrate
how oppositional loyalty manifests in various ways among Ford
and Holden (GM) consumers in Australia. In addition to the
brand community context, another main research stream
examines consumers’ negative evaluations and behaviors
toward rival teams in sports (Olson, 2018).
As oppositional loyalty involves not only consumers’
enhanced favorable attitude toward preferred brands but also
their opposition to rival brands, it has great managerial
importance for brand managers to maintain advantages and
defend rivals (Curina et al., 2020; Veloutsou et al., 2020). For
managers, the first step to leverage oppositional loyalty requires
a deep understanding of its formation. Two limitations stand
out in reviews of oppositional loyalty literature. First, much
research uses a qualitative approach to explore how
oppositional loyalty manifests (Muniz and Hamer, 2001;
Ewing et al., 2013; Osuna Ramírez et al., 2019). Although these
studies provide many insights, they are essentially exploratory
and do not provide a theoretical framework for the formation of
oppositional loyalty. Second, studies that empirically test the
antecedents of oppositional loyalty are limited. More
importantly, the limited studies are rather disparate and lack a
unified framework. For example, Kuo and Feng (2013) posit
that perceived brand community benefits increase brand
community commitment, which, in turn, fosters oppositional
loyalty. In a follow-up study, based on social identity theory
and consumer-brand relationship theory, Kuo and Hou (2017)
demonstrate that brand community identification increases
oppositional loyalty by enhancing brand commitment and self-
brand connection. However, Marticotte et al. (2016) find
brand loyalty and self-brand connection are associated with
desires to harm rival brands and trash-talking, whereas brand
community identification has no impact. Focusing on the
drivers of brand evangelism, Becerra and Badrinarayanan
(2013) find that brand identification influences consumers’
positive referrals of the brand and oppositional brand referrals
of competing brands. More recently, based on the expectation–
confirmation model, Liang et al. (2019) indicate the positive
role of customer satisfaction and social capital in generating
oppositional loyalty.
Against this backdrop, a unified framework of oppositional
loyalty built on a sound theoretical foundation is needed.
Drawing from identity theory, this study views oppositional
loyalty as a brand identity-driven outcome. Consumers use
their identities to organize and direct their behaviors (LeBoeuf
et al., 2010; Marin et al., 2009). Consumers’ identities inform a
Journal of Product & Brand Management
variety of behavioral decisions including brand preference
(LeBoeuf et al., 2010; Marin et al., 2009). As previous literature
suggests, the formation of oppositional loyalty toward rival
brands is not based on consumers’ negative consumption
experience with rival brands (Thompson and Sinha, 2008).
Rather, it arises because of consumers’ loyalty to their preferred
brands, or more accurately, their identity associated with their
preferred brands (Muniz and Hamer, 2001). Consumers use
some specific brands to communicate who they are (Escalas
and Bettman, 2005) and avoid other brands to communicate
who they are not (Ewing et al., 2013). In this way, consumers
express their self-identity unambiguously. When consumers
identify with a brand, rival brands in the marketplace can be
seen as a threat to their self-identity (Lisjak et al., 2012).
Therefore, based on identity theory, this paper builds and
tests a model that views oppositional loyalty as a behavior of
defining and expressing one’s identities by disassociating
oneself from undesirable brand identities. Specifically, this
paper studies how brand identity arises and when it becomes
salient to strengthen oppositional loyalty. In this framework,
self-brand similarity, brand prestige and brand uniqueness are
proposed as three critical drivers of consumer-brand
identification because they correspond to consumers’ self-
verification, self-enhancement and self-distinctiveness,
respectively (Stokburger-Sauer et al., 2012; Wolter et al.,
2016). Consumer-brand identification, in turn, influences
oppositional loyalty toward rival brands. Meanwhile, previous
research suggests that the power of identity in shaping
consumer behaviors depends on situations and identity-driven
behaviors are stronger in situations where identity is salient
(LeBoeuf et al., 2010; Marin et al., 2009). Therefore, it is
important to understand in what situations consumer-brand
identification leads to stronger oppositional loyalty. Based on
relevant literature, this study proposes two moderators that are
likely to activate brand-related identity and strengthen the
influence of brand identity on consumers’ opposing rival
brands, i.e. inter-consumer brand rivalry and brand community
engagement. Using a structural equation modeling approach,
data based on a survey of 329 consumers validated the
conceptual framework.
The contributions of this study are twofold. First, this paper
develops and tests a model of the formation of oppositional
loyalty and its underlying process. Although previous literature
provides evidence of antecedents of oppositional loyalty,
including brand commitment, customer satisfaction and other
factors, much of this literature is contextual and has not
examined the antecedents of oppositional loyalty in a unified
manner. Grounded on a solid theoretical foundation (identity
theory), this study conceptualizes oppositional loyalty as a
brand identity-driven outcome. Second, this paper goes
beyond examining the antecedents of oppositional loyalty by
investigating the conditions under which consumers’
opposition to rival brands is more pronounced. This article
verifies that inter-consumer brand rivalry and brand
community engagement are two factors that make consumers’
brand-related identity salient and thus strengthen consumers’
negative attitudes and behaviors toward rival brands.
In the next section, this paper briefly reviews identity theory,
the theoretical foundation of the theoretical framework. The
literature on consumer-brand identification and oppositional
 A conceptual framework and empirical evidence
Junyun Liao et al.
loyalty is also reviewed. A theoretical framework and
corresponding hypotheses are then formally developed. In what
follows, the framework is tested empirically and theoretical and
managerial implications are discussed. Finally, this article
concludes with discussions of research limitations and future
research directions.
Conceptual foundations
Identity theory
Social psychologists have developed a variety of identity-related
theories to explain how consumers are influenced by identity,
including self-categorization theory (Tajfel et al., 1971), social
identity theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1986) and identity-based
motivation model (Hugenberg and Bodenhausen, 2004).
Despite these divergent theories, it is well-accepted that
identity heavily shapes consumer behaviors (Oyserman, 2009a;
Marin et al., 2009; Black and Veloutsou, 2017). By unifying
views of different identity-related theories, Reed et al. (2012)
propose a general definition of identity. They define it as “any
category label to which a consumer self-associates either by
choice or endowment” (p. 312). This definition has three
important points. First, it accommodates the fact that
consumers can have unlimited category labels to define and
express themselves. In fact, consumers may have a variety of
identities simultaneously. Second, this definition states that a
category label becomes an identity by choice or endowment.
For example, one’s job can become a category label by choice,
whereas female is an identity by endowment. Finally and
probably more importantly, the definition proposes that a
category label becomes an identity because consumers
associate it with their self-concepts. Extant literature indicates
that brands can be incorporated into one’s self-concept and
thus become a meaningful identity with which consumers
communicate who they are (Escalas and Bettman, 2005; Belk,
1988; Fournier, 1998; Lam, 2012; Stokburger-Sauer et al.,
2012).
Despite the role of identities in driving consumer behaviors,
when and how identity affects consumer behaviors depend
heavily on whether the identity is salient in a situation (LeBoeuf
et al., 2010; Marin et al., 2009). According to the identity-based
motivation (IBM) model (Oyserman, 2009a), individuals’
identities are very malleable and situation-sensitive.
Consumers always hold a variety of identities (Hugenberg and
Bodenhausen, 2004), many of which are much silent and do
not guide consumer behaviors until they are triggered to be
salient (Oyserman, 2009a). As a result, the identities that
influence consumer behavior are those active ones at the
moment (LeBoeuf et al., 2010). The IBM model provides a
good understanding of how identities influence consumer
behaviors by highlighting the importance of situations in
triggering identities (Oyserman, 2009a). This model maintains
that situations not only cue identity but also construct the
meaning of identity and determine which actions are linked to
the identity (Oyserman, 2009b). In line with the IBM model,
Reed et al. (2012) propose the “identity salience principle” to
posit that identity has a stronger ability to motivate consumer
behaviors when it is salient and active. In summary, identity
theory suggests that identity strongly drives identity-congruent
mindset, perception and behaviors, especially when the identity
Journal of Product & Brand Management
is triggered to be salient by situational cues. This study
leverages identity theory to examine how consumer-brand
identification arises, how it influences oppositional loyalty, and
when this impact is stronger.
Consumer-brand identification
Scholars have long demonstrated that brands are an important
category label with which consumers construct and
communicate their self-concept (Belk, 1988; Fournier, 1998).
Brands are utilized to construct and communicate consumers’
self-concept because they carry symbolic meanings (Escalas
and Bettman, 2005). In the marketplace, brands acquire
symbolic meanings through a variety of ways, such as
positioning target consumers, employing celebrity endorsers
and even other social movements not under a firm’s control
(Escalas and Bettman, 2009; Hollenbeck and Zinkhan, 2010;
McCracken, 1986). Scholars often use “brand personality” to
describe brands’ symbolic meanings and define it as “the set of
human characteristics associated with a brand” (Aaker, 1997,
p. 347). The relationship between consumer personality and
brand personality are extensively examined. In general,
scholars find that consumers prefer brands with personalities
that match well with their personality (Lin, 2010; Maehle and
Shneor, 2010; Mulyanegara et al., 2009). Brands that fit well
with consumers’ self-concept are used to embody, inform, and
communicate consumers’ identities. Consumer-brand
identification is defined as “a customer’s psychological state of
perceiving, feeling and valuing his or her belongingness with a
brand” (Lam et al., 2010, p. 130). It reflects the extent to which
consumers use a brand to define themselves (Lam et al., 2013).
Consumers may consciously regard a brand as representative of
their self-concept, use it to represent themselves and develop an
emotional attachment to it (Wolter et al., 2016; Kucharska,
2017). Accordingly, consumers regard someone’s praising their
brand as a type of personal praise (Wolter et al., 2016).
Studies indicate that consumer-brand identification has a
positive impact on brands. Popp and Woratschek (2017)
suggest that consumer-brand identification enhances
satisfaction, positive word-of-mouth and brand loyalty.
Consumer-brand identification even motivates consumers to
resist negative information about companies (Liu et al., 2010).
Stokburger-Sauer et al. (2012) demonstrate that consumer-
brand identification facilitates brand loyalty and brand
advocacy. Torres et al. (2017) show that consumer-brand
identification is associated with high repurchase intention.
Despite these findings, prior research focuses mainly on the
effect of consumer-brand identification on consumers’
preferred brands. This study aims to complement the previous
literature by investigating the role of consumer-brand
identification in shaping consumers’ oppositional loyalty to
rival brands.
Oppositional loyalty
Consumers may show two kinds of loyalty (Muniz and
O’Guinn, 2001). One is loyalty to the brand they prefer, and
the other is oppositional loyalty to rival brands. Oppositional
loyalty was first coined by Muniz and Hamer (2001) to describe
the phenomenon in which consumers express their loyalty to a
brand by opposing its rival brands. The rise of social media has
made oppositional loyalty even more prevalent (Ewing
 A conceptual framework and empirical evidence
Junyun Liao et al.
et al., 2013). In recent years, much research has documented
the existence of oppositional loyalty among many pairs of two
competing brands in an industry (Ilhan et al., 2018). According
to numerous anecdotal examples, oppositional loyalty exists
not only between two “ordinary” or “lower-end” competing
brands such as Coca-Cola vs. Pepsi, Ford vs Chevrolet,
McDonald’s vs Burger King but also between “higher-end”
brands and products generally perceived by the public such as
electric vehicles by Tesla vs. BMW, smartphones by Apple vs
Samsung, software and hardware by Apple vs Microsoft and
gaming consoles by Sony vs Microsoft. Hostility and
oppositional loyalty behaviors by consumers could be present
even between two seemingly disparate or mismatched brands.
For example, loyal consumers of a fast-food chain such as
McDonald’s might ridicule the patrons of a luxury Michelin
star restaurant for the “ridiculously” high pricing of the meals
as a waste of money, and vice versa, the latter group of
consumers might think of those who like fast food as lack of
exquisite food taste or appreciation. Oppositional loyalty
manifests in many ways, including consumers’ restricting
themselves to purchasing their preferred brands and expressing
their hostility toward competing brands. Consumers may
publicly express their dislike of competing brands, deliberately
ridicule competing brands and engage in verbal attacks against
those brands’ supporters (Ewing et al., 2013; Muniz and
O’Guinn, 2001; Muniz and Hamer, 2001). For example, Mac
users’ disdain for and opposition to Microsoft are well
documented (Belk and Tumbat, 2005; Muniz and O’Guinn,
2001). Some Mac consumers may even make slanderous
attacks on Microsoft and gloat over Microsoft’s major product
flaws (Hickman and Ward, 2007). The most prominent
contexts where oppositional loyalty is reported and examined
may be sports and online brand communities (Ewing et al.,
2013).
Research, either in the context of sports or online brand
communities, suggests that oppositional loyalty is not based on
a negative consumption experience with a rival brand
(Thompson and Sinha, 2008; Olson, 2018). Rather,
oppositional loyalty is an identity-based behavior that
originates from a perception of the relationship between a
preferred brand and a rival brand (Thompson and Sinha,
2008). Oppositional loyalty involves how consumers define
themselves in terms of who they are not (Ewing et al., 2013).
Once consumers use a brand to define themselves, they are
likely to loathe rival brands because such brands present a
threat to their preferred brand and their own identities. In the
brand community context, Thompson and Sinha (2008) argue
that consumers’ oppositional loyalty toward competing brands
is based on their brand community membership. As a brand
admirer, an individual usually presents out-group bias, which
suggests a negative evaluation of rival brands. Although
increasing scholarly attention has been paid to the formation of
oppositional loyalty, the literature is very disparate and lacks a
unified framework. For instance, Kuo and Feng (2013) find
that perceived benefits from online brand communities lead to
stronger community commitment, which, in turn, enhances
oppositional loyalty. In a subsequent study, Kuo and his
colleague document that brand community identification
positively influences oppositional loyalty and this effect is
mediated by self-brand connection and brand commitment
Journal of Product & Brand Management
(Kuo and Hou, 2017). Based on the expectation–confirmation
model, Liang et al. (2019) empirically demonstrate the positive
role of customer satisfaction and social capital on oppositional
loyalty. The purpose of this research is to propose a unified
theoretical model of oppositional loyalty. Specifically, by taking
oppositional loyalty as an identity-driven outcome, this article
investigates how a brand identity arises, whether it influences
oppositional loyalty, and in what situations the effect becomes
stronger.
Research framework and hypotheses
Based on identity theory, this paper proposes a theoretical
framework to model the formation of consumers’ oppositional
loyalty toward a rival brand. This framework consists of three
critical components: consumer-brand identification, which
involves how consumers develop a self-defining association
with a brand. It is a process of identity development; identity-
driven behavior, an identity-based outcome which describes
the effect of consumer-brand identification on oppositional
loyalty; and identity salience, which articulates the moderating
role of inter-consumer brand rivalry and brand community
engagement in activating brand identity to exert influence on
the identity-based outcome of oppositional loyalty (Figure 1).
Identity development: the antecedents of consumer-
brand identification
Self-brand similarity is defined as the extent to which
consumers perceive that they may have similar traits or
characteristics to a brand (Stokburger-Sauer et al., 2012;
Wolter et al., 2016). The notion of self-brand similarity
emphasizes the factual state (not the connection or attachment
to the brand because of the similarity which is usually fulfilled
in the later process of consumer-brand identification) that there
are certain perceived similarities by the consumers between
themselves and the brand. Consumption behaviors can be an
important part of self-construction (Belk, 1988; Fournier,
1998) and because of their symbolic meanings, brands play a
significant role in consumers’ creating and expressing identity
(Rodhain, 2006; Kuenzel and Vaux Halliday, 2008). Based on
identity theory, an identity is an object inculcated with personal
relevance (Tuškej et al., 2013). Past studies have shown that
consumers’ brand identification is related to their perception of
the brand, such as the similarity between the brand and
Figure 1 Research framework
Identity-driven
Self-brand
similarity H1 outcome
Brand H2 Consumer-brand H4 Oppositional
prestige identification loyalty
H5 H6
H3
Inter-consumer Brand
Brand brand rivalry community
uniqueness engagement
Identity development Identity salience
 A conceptual framework and empirical evidence
Junyun Liao et al.
themselves (Stokburger-Sauer et al., 2012). The higher the
similarity between a brand and consumer characteristics, the
more likely a consumer will resonate with the brand and have a
stronger brand preference (Stokburger-Sauer et al., 2012).
Some research finds that if a brand is more similar to the
consumers’ self-image, their attitude and impression toward
the brand is better (Torres et al., 2017). The similarity between
brand and self helps to express one’s self-concept. When a
brand’s personality is perceived to be similar to that of
consumers, consumers are likely to find the brand more
attractive because this similarity enables them to maintain and
express their self-concept more comprehensively and
authentically (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2003). Accordingly,
consumers may identify with brands that match well with their
self-concept (Wolter et al., 2016). Based on the above
discussion, this paper proposes the following hypothesis:
H1. Self-brand similarity has a positive impact on consumer-
brand identification.
Brand prestige is defined as the status or esteem associated with
a brand (Baek et al., 2010). People tend to look at themselves in
a positive way (Tuškej et al., 2013). This need for self-
enhancement can be met by identifying well-known social
entities such as organizations and brands (Bhattacharya and
Sen, 2003). Brand prestige and brand uniqueness are
considered to be the two most prominent characteristics of
brands (So et al., 2017). According to social identity theory,
when a brand satisfies consumers’ need for self-enhancement,
consumer-brand identification will arise (Bhattacharya and
Sen, 2003). This theory holds that driven by self-enhancement
motivation, an individual intends to affirm and maintain
positive self-views to achieve a higher level of self-esteem
(Torres et al., 2017). Therefore, consumers are likely to
establish links with reputable organizations or brands for self-
enhancement purposes. Because prestigious brands have a
superior reputation, consumers can use such brands to meet
their self-enhancement needs. Further, studies have found that
when a brand’s identity is more prestigious and distinctive,
consumers’ affective identification with the brand will increase
(Wolter et al., 2016). Taken together, this paper predicts that
brand prestige is a driving force of consumer-brand
identification.
H2. Brand prestige has a positive impact on consumer-brand
identification.
Brand uniqueness is often described as the uniqueness of a
brand relative to its competitors (Stokburger-Sauer et al.,
2012). Brands with unique image characteristics will be more
separable from competitors (Stokburger-Sauer et al., 2012).
According to the theory of uniqueness (Stokburger-Sauer et al.,
2012), people are inclined to see themselves as unique
individuals in the world (Berger and Heath, 2007). The
demand for brand uniqueness indicates consumers’ pursuit of
uniqueness (Tian et al., 2001). Research shows that people use
brand uniqueness to enhance their identity (Zenker et al.,
2017). Social identity studies suggest that people tend to
distinguish themselves from others in a social environment
(Zenker et al., 2017). Individuals can use self-categorization
(i.e. self-definition based on their social category) as a means of
Journal of Product & Brand Management
separating themselves from groups they do not belong to
(Triandis, 2018). Brands with distinct images from other
competitors are more likely to satisfy consumers’ self-
definition, and thereby foster identification (Stokburger-Sauer
et al., 2012). Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H3. Brand uniqueness has a positive impact on consumer-
brand identification.
Identity-driven outcome: effect of consumer-brand
identification
At the individual level, a large number of studies have shown
that identifying with a group or organization can enhance a
person’s self-esteem, self-uniqueness and self-verification
(Hatch, 2018). Social identity also fosters one’s loyalty to his/
her in-groups (Angell et al., 2016), while fostering negative
views on out-groups (Ewing et al., 2013). As a result,
oppositional loyalty becomes prominent when an individual
identifies with a group and, especially, realizes the existence of
other competing groups (Thompson and Sinha, 2008). When
consumers highly identify with a particular brand, others’
behavior toward the brand is perceived as behavior toward
themselves (Marticotte et al., 2016). If a brand is acclaimed,
consumers who identify with the brand may feel as if they were
praised (Cheng et al., 2012). Conversely, when their preferred
brands become targets of attack or encounter problems from
competitors, they feel threatened. In this situation, their
intention to prevent a threat from other brands may arise,
which motivates their defamation of competing brands.
Because of fierce competition, a focal brand always confronts
threats from competing brands. Consumers may believe that a
threat posed by a rival brand to their preferred brand is
equivalent to themselves being threatened (Marticotte et al.,
2016). Motivated by this identity threat, consumers are likely to
defend their brands by opposing rival brands (Marticotte et al.,
2016). Therefore:
H4. Consumer-brand identification has a positive impact on
oppositional loyalty to rival brands.
Identity salience: the role of inter-consumer brand
rivalry
The IBM model highlights the importance of situations in
determining consumers’ identity-based behaviors (Oyserman,
2009a). Among many possessed identities, which one can
determine consumer behaviors depends heavily on chronic
temporal and situational cues (Oyserman, 2009a). Some
identities are said to be narrower (e.g. professor) than other
identities (e.g. female) in terms of their susceptibility to being
cued in people’s daily life (Aaker and Akutsu, 2009). In
contrast with broad identities that can be cued widely, narrow
identities usually require specific contexts to be triggered.
Usually, consumers’ brand-related identity is narrow. For
example, one’s identity of being a sports fan would only
become very salient on a game day. Therefore, consumers’
brand-related identity should be salient to shape consumer
behaviors, such as opposition to rival brands. Based on this
idea, going beyond examining the antecedents of oppositional
loyalty, this article also investigates in what situations the effect
 A conceptual framework and empirical evidence
Junyun Liao et al.
of brand identity on oppositional loyalty is stronger.
Specifically, this study proposes two critical factors that may
heavily evoke consumers’ brand identity and strengthen
opposition to rival brands: inter-consumer brand rivalry and
brand community engagement.
This paper proposes inter-consumer brand rivalry as an
identity threat that triggers one’s opposition toward rival
brands. Inter-consumer brand rivalry refers to perceived rivalry
among consumers of competing brands (Berendt et al., 2018).
It is concerned with how consumers of a focal brand feel about
consumers of a rival brand, which may be characterized by
disagreement, hostility, and contentious behaviors and
activities between the two rival consumer groups. This type of
contention between rival consumer groups can be very salient
in social media (Berendt et al., 2018). The relationship is
consumer to (rival) consumer. By contrast, oppositional loyalty
refers to the extent to which consumers of a focal brand oppose
a rival brand. It is about one’s attitude and behavioral intention
toward a rival brand thereby the relationship is consumer to
(rival) brand which is different from the consumer-to-
consumer relationship in the inter-consumer brand rivalry.
Ample evidence shows that inter-consumer brand rivalry is
usually not unidirectional, but rather bidirectional and mutual
(Berendt et al., 2018; Ewing et al., 2013). Inter-consumer
brand rivalry is well-documented on many consumers of a pair
of competing brands, such as Coke versus Pepsi (Muniz and
Hamer, 2001), Apple versus Microsoft (Phillips-Melancon and
Dalakas, 2014) and Ford vs General Motors (Ewing et al.,
2013). Previous research in sports suggests a long history of
competition between two teams usually facilitates strong rivalry
between their fans (Converse and Reinhard, 2016; Olson,
2018). As in sports, quips and scorns consumers receive on
their preferred brand from rivals often strongly evoke their
brand identification. A sense of threat activated by a negative
attitude of consumers of rival brands would strengthen
opposition toward the rival brands because brand identification
causes consumers to see threats to their brands as threats to
their self-identity (Lisjak et al., 2012). Taken together, rivalry
from consumers of competing brands is likely to trigger a
consumer’s brand identity to be salient, which further leads to
increased oppositional loyalty against rival brands.
H5. Inter-consumer brand rivalry strengthens the
relationship between consumer-brand identification and
oppositional loyalty.
Identity salience: the role of brand community
engagement
Although the existence of the rivalry effect may be extensive
regardless of online or offline environment, new
communication technologies (e.g. online brand communities)
may cause the rivalry to be stronger (Ewing et al., 2013). In an
offline context, it may be difficult for consumers with the same
passion for a brand to get connected and converse closely and
frequently. However, online brand communities overcome
geographic limitations and allow a great number of consumers
of the same brand to talk in an easy, remote manner. In online
brand communities, an individual can interact with many
consumers with the same brand passion, for example, sharing
Journal of Product & Brand Management
brand stories, news and knowledge. Through such interactions,
people create their languages, rituals, traditions, and more
importantly, a sense of us around the brand (Muniz and
O’Guinn, 2001; Tsai and Bagozzi, 2014). Thus, brand-
centered communication in online brand communities will
consistently remind participants of their identity related to the
brand. Furthermore, brand community members tend to
assimilate content within a brand community in favor of their
preferred brand and express negative views on rival brands (Bee
et al., 2019). Meanwhile, brand community members are more
daring to express negative evaluations of rival brands in an in-
group context, which is less likely, if not impossible, when a
person is alone and isolated. With extensive communication
with other in-group consumers, one’s attitude toward rival
brands can become extreme and stable as suggested by the
group polarization effect (Myers and Lamm, 1976; Rao and
Steckel, 1991). Taken together, consumers’ oppositional
loyalty toward rival brands could be strengthened by brand
community engagement. Therefore, the following hypothesis is
put forward:
H6. Brand community engagement strengthens the
relationship between consumer-brand identification and
oppositional loyalty.
Methodology and results
China has become the world’s largest smartphone market since
2012 (Wong, 2020). Smartphones have become to be an
integral part of people’s lives in China. As a type of product
publicly consumed, smartphones are used by consumers to
convey who they are (Kim et al., 2014). Many consumers also
actively participate in online communities of smartphone
brands to search for useful information and interact with other
like-minded users (Kaur et al., 2018). Many Chinese
smartphone brands have established online brand communities
to accommodate consumers’ needs for communication (Gong,
2018). There are many smartphone brands in the Chinese
market with some selling high-price devices (e.g. Apple and
Huawei) while others mainly provide low-price phones (e.g.
Redmi and Meizu). The rivalry is common among brand
community users of electronic products affiliated with different
brands (Muniz and O’Guinn, 2001). Such consumer rivalry is
also revealed among smartphone users in previous research
(Diel et al., 2018). Therefore, data were collected from
smartphone users in online communities of smartphone brands
in this study.
This research invited consumers in online communities of
smartphone brands to take an online survey questionnaire.
With the help of a marketing research company, this paper used
one of the most popular social networking sites in China, Baidu
Tieba (tieba.baidu.com), on which a large number of firms
build brand communities to connect with consumers. To
ensure a high rate and quality of responses to the questionnaire,
each qualified participant was paid 5 RMB (about $0.7). The
questionnaire included three parts. The first part involved
consumers’ evaluation of their smartphone brand and their
brand community participation. The second was an evaluation
of rival brands. In this part, participants were instructed to
name the biggest archrival of their smartphone brand in their
 A conceptual framework and empirical evidence Journal of Product & Brand Management
Junyun Liao et al.

mind and answer questions related to the archrival. The third part similar to the brand in personality using two measurement
consisted of several questions concerning respondents’ items. After creating the first version of the questionnaire,
demographics. Questionnaires were distributed over two weeks. A following Elbedweihy et al. (2016), the authors invited 20
total of 375 questionnaires were collected, and the results were brand community members of mobile phone brands to
screened. After removing questionnaires with the same IP address complete the questionnaire and provide feedback about the
and obvious errors in logic, 329 questionnaires were considered items in the questionnaire. From that input, the authors
valid, with an effective response rate of 87.73%. modified some items to eliminate inappropriate wording or
Table 1 lists the demographic statistics of the sample. Male ambiguous phrasing. The final questionnaire consisted of 25
gender accounted for 57.75% and the age group of 18–24 years items, all measured on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from
old accounted for 62.31%. In terms of education level, the 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
major category was undergraduate (38.30%); monthly income
level, 1,000–3,000 RMB (38.60%); years of participating in the Measurement model assessment
mobile phone community, 2–3 years (36.17%); and visits per Following Anderson and Gerbing (1988), this paper used a
week to brand communities, 1-3 times (42.55%). two-step procedure, first to assess the reliability and validity of
the measures and then to test the hypotheses in the structural
Measures model. The validity of the scales was assessed by confirmatory
factor analysis (CFA) of the measurement model in AMOS
All constructs, including self-brand similarity (Wolter et al.,
17.0. CFA results indicate that the measurement model fits the
2016), brand prestige (Baek et al., 2010), brand uniqueness
data reasonably well ( x 2 = 461.796, df = 174, p = 0.00;
(Kemp et al., 2012), consumer-brand identification (Zhou
RMSEA = 0.085; CFI = 0.919; TLI = 0.903; GFI = 0.929;
et al., 2012), oppositional loyalty (Kuo and Feng, 2013; Kuo
SRMR = 0.055).
and Hou, 2017), inter-consumer brand rivalry (Berendt et al.,
Cronbach’s a value was used to assess internal consistency.
2018) and brand community engagement (Fassnacht et al.,
The results in Table 2 indicate all values of Cronbach’s a are
2016), were adapted from previously established scales with
above 0.750, suggesting that the measures of the constructs
several slight modifications to accommodate the research
have high internal consistency. Moreover, the composite
context and respondents. The detailed measures of the
reliability (CR) value of each construct is above 0.750
constructs are presented in Table 2. Notably, when measuring
(Table 3), which indicates that the combination reliability of
self-brand similarity, this paper followed the instruction of
these constructs is good. In this study, the scale involved in the
Wolter et al. (2016). Specifically, the participants were asked to
questionnaire refers to the established scales, which ensure high
first think about the brand’s personality and their own
content validity. The evaluation of structural validity includes
personalities and then to assess the extent to which they are
convergence validity and discrimination validity. Because all of
the standardization factor loadings are greater than 0.5 and
Table 1 Respondent demographics significant, the CR is greater than 0.750, and the average
Characteristic Description Frequency (%) extraction variance AVE is greater than 0.5, the scale can be
judged to have high convergence validity. In terms of
Gender Male 190 57.75
discrimination validity, the results in Table 3 show that the
Female 139 42.25
AVE values of each latent variable are larger than the square of
Age (years) 18–24 208 63.22
the correlation coefficients between the variable and other
25–30 105 31.91
variables, indicating that discrimination validity is good
31–40 15 4.56
(Fornell and Larcker, 1981).
>40 1 0.31
Education level High school or below 38 11.55
Hypothesis testing
Junior college 120 36.47
A structural model was estimated to test hypotheses H1 to H4.
Undergraduate 126 38.30
The various indicators confirmed that the model fit the data
Graduate 45 13.68
well [ x 2(128) = 206.608, x 2/df = 1.614 p < 0.001, RMSEA =
Monthly <1,000 80 24.32
0.080, CFI = 0.922, NFI = 0.921, IFI = 0.922, GFI = 0.914].
income 1,000–3,000 127 38.60
As shown in Table 4, the result indicated that self-brand
(in RMB) 3,001–5,000 50 15.20
5,001–7,000 33 10.03
similarity positively and significantly affected consumer brand
>7,000 39 11.85
identification ( b = 0.399, p < 0.001), and H1 was supported.
Community Less than a year 91 27.66
Thus, the similarity between brand and self appears to help
tenure 1–2 year(s) 89 27.05
express and enhance consumers’ identity. The more similarities
2–3 years 119 36.17 the consumers’ personality and the brand characteristics have,
Over 3 years 30 9.12 the more likely consumers are to identify with the brand.
Community Less than once a 115 34.95 Second, brand prestige had a significant positive impact on
visit frequency week consumer brand identification ( b = 0.157, p < 0.05),
1–3 times a week 140 42.55 supporting H2. Consumers likely use products with brand
4–6 times a week 48 14.59 prestige to achieve self-improvement satisfaction, and they
Once or more 26 7.91 create brand identification because of the reputation of the
times each day brand. Furthermore, brand uniqueness had a significant
positive impact on consumer brand identification ( b = 0.201,
 A conceptual framework and empirical evidence Journal of Product & Brand Management
Junyun Liao et al.

Table 2 Measurement model results

Construct Items Loading
Self-brand similarity The brand’s personality is consistent with how I see myself 0.863
I have a similar personality to the brand 0.949
Brand prestige This brand is very prestigious 0.820
This brand has a high status 0.926
This brand is very upscale 0.833
Brand uniqueness This brand is “distinct” from other brands of mobile phones 0.727
This brand really “stands out” from other competitors 0.686
This brand is “unique” from other brands 0.726
Consumer-brand The brand represents who I am 0.886
identification The brand’s successes are my successes 0.845
When I talk about this brand, I usually say “we” rather than “they” 0.903
When someone praises this brand, it feels like a personal compliment 0.624
Oppositional loyalty I will not consider buying any products of the rival brand even if the products can better meet consumers’ specific 0.829
needs
I will oppose the rival brand even it is praised by other people 0.854
I will not try the rival brand even if it is widely discussed 0.780
I will not recommend the products of the rival brand even if the products are generally considered better 0.942
I will avoid any connection with the rival brand 0.883
I will express negative views to the rival brand 0.601
Inter-consumer brand rivalry The rivalry is mutual between consumers of the brand I use and consumers of the rival brand 0.899
For consumers of the rival brand, consumers of my mobile phone brand are their archrivals 0.943
Consumers of the rival brand consider my mobile phone brand consumers serious rivals 0.935
Brand community I frequently interact with other community members 0.752
engagement I spend a lot of time participating in the brand community’s activities 0.942
I often communicate with members of the community 0.955
I have bidirectional communication with other community members 0.936

Table 3 Descriptive statistics and correlations

Construct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Self-brand similarity 1
2. Brand prestige 0.479** 1
3. Brand uniqueness 0.340** 0.492** 1
4. Consumer-brand identification 0.371** 0.505** 0.463** 1
5. Oppositional loyalty 0.420** 0.397** 0.370** 0.453** 1
6. Inter-consumer brand rivalry 0.130* 0.039 0.126* 0.146** 0.325** 1
7. Brand community engagement 0.503** 0.358** 0.388** 0.504** 0.442** 0.183** 1
a 0.899 0.889 0.753 0.886 0.922 0.916 0.941
CR 0.902 0.895 0.756 0.891 0.924 0.947 0.944
AVE 0.822 0.741 0.508 0.676 0.675 0.857 0.810
Mean 4.510 5.031 5.158 4.147 3.749 4.331 3.665
SD 1.393 1.279 1.065 1.388 1.384 1.473 1.528
Notes: a = Cronbach’s alpha; CR = Composite reliability; AVE = Average variance extracted. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001

p < 0.05), supporting H3. A more unique brand appears to be
more attractive to consumers, and distinction from
competitors’ brands is especially likely to drive consumers’
identification. Finally, consumer brand identification positively
affected oppositional loyalty ( b = 0.258, p < 0.001),
supporting H4.
This paper employed the multi-group comparison approach
to test the moderation relationship implied by H5 for inter-
consumer brand rivalry. A multi-group analysis is a widely used
method for comparing the covariant structural relationships
among different sample groups (Füller and Bilgram, 2017;
Walsh et al., 2017). A median split for inter-consumer brand
rivalry was first performed to create two subgroups, one with
low inter-consumer brand rivalry and one with high inter-
consumer brand rivalry. Then, the authors compared the
difference in terms of the model fit between an unrestricted
model that allowed different estimates of the relationship
between consumer-brand identification and oppositional
loyalty for the two subgroups and another restricted model that
constrained the estimates to be the same. Following prior
 A conceptual framework and empirical evidence
Junyun Liao et al.
Table 4 Hypotheses tests
Path
H1 Self-brand similarity ! consumer-brand identification
H2 Brand prestige ! consumer-brand identification
H3 Brand uniqueness ! consumer-brand identification
H4 Consumer brand identification ! oppositional loyalty
Notes: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001
research (Füller and Bilgram, 2017; Walsh et al., 2017), the
chi-square difference test was used to determine whether the
models differed significantly from one another. If x 2 improves
significantly when moving from the restricted model to the
more general model, the moderation effect is established. The
standardized parameter estimates of the impact of consumer-
brand identification on oppositional loyalty in the unrestricted
model are shown in Table 5. Consistent with prediction, the
coefficient values were larger in the high inter-consumer brand
rivalry subgroup ( b = 0.298, p < 0.01) compared to the low
inter-consumer brand rivalry subgroup ( b = 0.569, p < 0.001).
The x 2-difference test further indicated that there was a
significant difference between the unrestricted model and the
restricted model [D x 2(1) = 15.896, p < 0.001]. Therefore, the
results confirmed H5: the higher the inter-consumer brand
rivalry, the stronger the relationship between consumer-brand
identification and oppositional loyalty.
With the same approach of testing the moderation of inter-
consumer brand rivalry, this paper performed a median split for
brand community engagement to create two subgroups, one with
low brand community engagement and one with high brand
community engagement and estimated two models (restricted vs.
unrestricted) to test the difference between the two models. The
standardized parameter estimates of the impact of consumer-brand
identification on oppositional loyalty for the two subgroups in the
unrestricted model are shown in Table 5. Consistent with
prediction, the coefficient values were larger in the high brand
community engagement subgroup (b = 0.108, p < 0.05) compared
to the low brand community engagement subgroup (b = 0.415,
p < 0.01). The x 2-difference test further indicated that there was a
significant difference between the unrestricted model and the
restricted model [D x 2(1) = 7.344, p < 0.01]. Therefore, the results
confirmed H6: the higher the brand community engagement, the
stronger the relationship between consumer-brand identification
and oppositional loyalty.
Discussion
Consumers’ oppositional loyalty toward rival brands is
becoming increasingly notable in recent years (Berendt et al.,
2018; Ilhan et al., 2018; Dessart et al., 2020; Naumann
Table 5 Moderation test
Lower group
Moderator Coefficient t-value
H5 Inter-consumer brand rivalry 0.298 3.354
H6 Brand community engagement 0.108 2.501
Notes: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Coefficient t-values Result
0.399*** 6.962 Supported
0.157* 2.341 Supported
0.201* 2.013 Supported
0.258*** 8.583 Supported
et al., 2020). The purpose of this study is to add insights to the
literature by examining the antecedents and moderators of
oppositional loyalty. Drawing from identity theory, this study
proposes that oppositional loyalty is an identity-driven outcome
such that it arises because of consumers’ brand-related
identities rather than negative brand experience. As consumers
intentionally choose a brand that matches their self-image and
use such a brand to convey themselves (Torres et al., 2017;
Wolter et al., 2016), they develop identification with this brand.
When brand identification with a focal brand is established,
consumers are likely to oppose rival brands because rival
brands always present brand image and/or brand value that are
different from the focal brand and conflict with the consumers’
self-concept. In other words, when one advocates for a brand,
she/he may oppose its rivalries.
Therefore, built on the identity theory, more specifically the
identity-based motivation (IBM) model, this article proposes a
conceptual framework of the antecedents and moderators of
oppositional loyalty which involves identity development,
identity-salience and identity-driven outcome. First, the results
indicate that self-brand similarity, brand prestige and brand
uniqueness all lead to consumers’ identification with a brand in
the context of the high-tech, smartphone industry, which is
consistent with previous research. For example, Stokburger-
Sauer et al. (2012) find self-brand similarity increases one’s
brand identification. Consumers always like to have and
present positive identities (i.e. self-enhancement). Associating
with well-known social entities such as organizations and
brands is an important way to achieve this goal (Bhattacharya
and Sen, 2003). Therefore, brand prestige, which indicates the
status or esteem associated with a brand (Baek et al., 2010),
fosters consumer-brand identification. The uniqueness of a
brand, which helps consumers stand out from others, leads to
higher consumer-brand identification because it fulfills
consumers’ needs for uniqueness (Berger and Heath, 2007;
Chan et al., 2012). As a matter of magnitude of influence,
according to the hypothesis testing results, self-brand similarity
is the strongest predictor ( b = 0.399) of consumer-brand
identification among the three antecedents together with brand
prestige and brand uniqueness. This may indicate that self-
Higher group
Coefficient t-value D x 2 Difference Result
0.569 8.145 15.896*** Supported
0.415 3.073 7.344** Supported
 A conceptual framework and empirical evidence
Junyun Liao et al.
brand similarity is by far the most significant factor among the
three in the context of the smartphone industry.
Consistent with previous findings, consumer-brand
identification motivates consumers’ oppositional brand
referrals (Becerra and Badrinarayanan, 2013). However, going
beyond the main effect, this study also proposes the situations
that moderate the impact of brand identification on
oppositional loyalty. Specifically, inter-consumer brand rivalry
and brand community engagement were found to strengthen
the impact of brand identification on oppositional loyalty.
Berendt et al. (2018) classify brand rivalry into inter-firm brand
rivalry and inter-consumer brand rivalry. They find that these
two types of brand rivalry can provide benefits by fostering
perceived brand distinctiveness and group distinctiveness,
respectively. This article complements their research by
demonstrating that inter-consumer brand rivalry benefits
brands through activating consumers’ brand-related identities
and motivating consumers to oppose rival brands. In terms of
the role of brand community engagement, despite previous
studies indicating group polarization and brand rivalry is
intensive in the brand community context (Osuna Ramírez
et al., 2019; Ewing et al., 2013), they provide limited empirical
examinations about why and whether this is the case.
According to the IBM model (Oyserman, 2009a), this study
establishes that brand community engagement amplifies the
salience of one’s identities related to the focal brand, which, in
turn, leads to higher oppositional loyalty toward rival brands.
This finding highlights the importance of salient brand-related
identity in motivating consumers’ oppositional loyalty.
Theoretical implications
This paper makes several theoretical contributions to the
literature. First, this study extends the antecedents of
oppositional loyalty. Probably driven by intensive social media
and their anonymity, the brand rivalry has become more
prevalent (Ewing et al., 2013) and thus has drawn increasing
research attention in recent years (Osuna Ramírez et al., 2019;
Berendt et al., 2018; Ilhan et al., 2018; Thompson et al., 2019).
However, much research so far has been exploratory, and
limited studies have investigated the antecedents of
oppositional loyalty (Kuo and Hou, 2017; Liang et al., 2019).
Departing from the limited studies that build their framework
based on consumer-brand relationship theory (Kuo and Hou,
2017; Becerra and Badrinarayanan, 2013), this study extends
the oppositional loyalty literature by providing a unified
framework of the antecedents of oppositional loyalty based on
identity theory. This framework articulates how brand identity
arises, how it influences oppositional loyalty, and in what
situations this influence is stronger.
Second, this study offers new insights into how situations
evoke consumers’ oppositional loyalty toward rival brands.
Previous research has extensively revealed the prominence of
oppositional loyalty in two specific contexts, namely, sports and
online brand community. There is limited understanding,
however, of why it occurs in these settings. Based on identity
theory, this study posits that inter-consumer brand rivalry and
brand community engagement trigger consumers’ brand-
related identity and make it salient. According to the IBM
model, brand identity is more likely to cause stronger identity-
congruent action tendencies when it is cued to be salient by
Journal of Product & Brand Management
specific situations. The results suggest inter-consumer brand
rivalry and brand community can be such situations. The
former can trigger a brand identity because it activates a sense
of threat from out-groups, whereas the latter plays a role
because it makes a shared brand identity easily accessible. Both
situations have a high capacity to trigger the consumer’s brand
identity that drives identity-consistent behaviors.
Third, in recent years scholars have been increasingly
interested in the drivers of consumer-brand identification
(Stokburger-Sauer et al., 2012; Sihvonen, 2019; Wolter et al.,
2016). This study adds to this emerging research stream by
demonstrating that self-brand similarity, brand prestige and
brand uniqueness are three critical driving factors of consumer-
brand identification. By uncovering the role of multiple drivers
of consumer-brand identification in a single model, this paper
demonstrates that each of these drivers has an influence, even
when controlling for the effects of the others. Notably, in
contrast to prior research indicating that the affective drivers
are stronger among multiple drivers (Stokburger-Sauer et al.,
2012), the findings highlight a stronger role of cognitive drivers
(i.e. self-brand similarity), a finding consistent with some other
research (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2003). It may be the case that
consumers’ assessment of whether they are similar to a brand
comes first and plays a more fundamental role in terms of the
development of consumer-brand identification (Sihvonen,
2019).
Managerial implications
Scholars increasingly believe that negativity toward a rival
brand may represent a marketing opportunity for firms (Osuna
Ramírez et al., 2019; Ilhan et al., 2018). In line with this notion,
this study offers several suggestive managerial implications for
building consumer loyalty, oppositional loyalty in particular.
First, marketers might want to maximize the chance and
strength of consumer-brand identification as it can motivate
consumers to oppose rival brands. Marketers can position and
advertise their brands carefully and intentionally with a set of
critical specific symbolic similarities in their products’ features
that may evoke the chance to easily resonate and connect with
their target customers. For example, by adopting a series of
bold color and sleek design on the smartphones, the products
may be more able to connect with the Gen Z and Millennials as
many of such aged consumers see themselves as young,
energetic, independent, diverse and expressive. By doing this,
brands will be able to showcase the products’ symbolic
similarities that can meet the needs of target consumers’ self-
consistency, thereby increasing the chance and strength of
consumer-brand identification. As another exemplary
anecdote, Vivo, a Chinese mobile phone brand, attracts a large
amount of young female customers by highlighting certain
symbolic-similarity characteristics such as a sleek design,
trendy and breezy colors, flexible high-definition cameras and
advertising by a young female leading model. In addition, when
establishing and projecting a brand image to target consumers,
marketers should try their best to distinguish their brand from
those of competitors because a unique brand image enhances
the chance of consumer-brand identification. A classic and
iconic example is the release of the Cybertruck by Tesla in late
2019. The futuristic and unique look of the electric truck
shocked and certainly attracted a high volume of potential
 A conceptual framework and empirical evidence
Junyun Liao et al.
buyers who could not wait to preorder the model on Tesla’s
website (Engheim, 2019). Furthermore, a strong brand
reputation or prestige may also promote the process of
consumer-brand identification in relatively high-end products
and brands such as the premier series of smartphones by the
major producers in the smartphone industry, because it satisfies
certain consumers’ needs for self-enhancement and self-esteem
(Stokburger-Sauer et al., 2012).
Second, unlike the research on the dark side of brand rivalry,
this study suggests that brand rivalry actually can be leveraged
(sometimes even intentionally) by brands incautious and
ethnical ways to foster brand loyalty. Instead of attempting to
push the unrealistic image that the brands could appeal to every
single possible consumer, the marketers should rather candidly
acknowledge that is usually infeasible, and there does exist
brand haters and rivalry (Osuna Ramírez et al., 2019). By
highlighting the existence of brand haters and the reason of
being hated or disliked, brands can convey clear and distinct
brand meanings to their target consumers and motivate loyal
consumers’ advocacy. Brands could deter rivals by articulating
the competing brands’ inconsistent brand values, operation
policies and marketing. Furthermore, it would be beneficial to
describe such inconsistency as being identity-relevant because
identity-relevant conflicts significantly trigger consumers’
willingness to protect preferred brands (Lisjak et al., 2012).
Managers could highlight the advantages of their products by
comparing their products with those of competing brands in
social media, advertisements or so implicitly and cautiously, as
a company that offers a comparable yet favorable product to its
competitors is more likely to benefit from consumers’
oppositional loyalty (Thompson and Sinha, 2008). To avoid
ethical concerns, firms would rather not provide the specific
names of competing brands and products when making such a
comparison. An ironic example is the famous Samsung ad in
2017 in which the smartphone manufacturer mocked Apple’s
iPhone X screen notch by mimicking it in the haircut of an
Apple fan (Cuthbertson, 2017).
Third, brand communities play a critical role in triggering
consumers’ brand-related identity. Consumers’ brand identity
cannot be easily activated when they are isolated in an offline
context. However, when consumers of a brand gather in online
brand communities, it will be much easier for them to realize
that they all are the same brand lovers, which can trigger their
brand-related identity. In this case, explicit opposition to a rival
brand is more likely to arise. To a more extreme extent,
sometimes depreciating rival brands even can bring joy to the
brand community members (Osuna Ramírez et al., 2019).
Therefore, marketers should encourage consumers to join the
company’s brand community by offering join benefits to
customers. For instance, some Chinese mobile phone brands
provide their brand community members with preferential
service compared to average customers. They also appoint
official delegates in brand communities to collect customers’
voices and feedback and respond to customers’ needs directly.
When managing a brand community, it is of paramount
importance to foster the shared brand identity in various ways,
such as propagating unique and/or similarity-evoking brand
values, initiating brand campaigns and events including
exclusive ones for VIPs and of course rewarding loyal and
Journal of Product & Brand Management
engaged members by various perks such as badges, points,
coupons, discounts, sales and invitations to exclusive events.
Limitations and future research
Like any study, this one has limitations that call for further
research. First, this study is limited to the empirical analysis of
brand communities of smartphone brands in China. Although
the survey covered a wide range of brand communities,
community members of different product categories (especially
relatively low-tech industries such as fast food and beverage) or
regions and/or cultures might have varied behavioral patterns.
Therefore, future researchers may consider studying and
verifying the relationships among the three antecedents (self-
brand similarity, brand prestige and brand uniqueness),
consumer-brand identification and oppositional loyalty in
those different contexts, especially for certain less-significant
ones such as brand prestige. Second, in addition to self-brand
similarity, brand prestige and brand uniqueness, other factors
may also lead to consumer-brand identification. Scholars could
expand the range of factors that may affect consumers’ brand
identification in future studies. Third, oppositional loyalty
involves both active (e.g. trash talk) and passive behaviors (e.g.
brand avoidance), and the two types of behaviors may have
differential antecedents (Hegner et al., 2017). Therefore, future
research could enrich the literature by examining the
antecedents of the two separate aspects of oppositional loyalty.
Finally, this study discusses the premise of oppositional loyalty,
but the consequences of oppositional loyalty also require more
investigation. Future empirical research may test the effect of
oppositional loyalty in the brand community context, such as
whether oppositional loyalty toward competing brands
increases the cohesion of a brand community and its members’
overall engagement.
References
Aaker, J.L. (1997), “Dimensions of brand personality”, Journal
of Marketing Research, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 347-356.
Aaker, J.L. and Akutsu, S. (2009), “Why do people give? The
role of identity in giving”, Journal of Consumer Psychology,
Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 267-270.
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation
modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step
approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-423.
Angell, R.J., Gorton, M., Bottomley, P. and White, J. (2016),
“Understanding fans’ responses to the sponsor of a rival
team”, European Sport Management Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 2,
pp. 190-213.
Baek, T.H., Kim, J. and Yu, J.H. (2010), “The differential
roles of brand credibility and brand prestige in consumer
brand choice”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 7,
pp. 662-678.
Becerra, E. and Badrinarayanan, V. (2013), “The influence of
brand trust and brand identification on brand evangelism”,
Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 22 Nos 5/6,
pp. 371-383.
Bee, C., King, J. and Stornelli, J. (2019), “Are you with us or
against us? The role of threat and anger in sport
sponsorship”, Journal of Business Research, doi: 10.1016/j.
jbusres.2019.02.048.
 A conceptual framework and empirical evidence
Junyun Liao et al.
Belk, R.W. (1988), “Possessions and the extended self”,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 139-168.
Belk, R. and Tumbat, G. (2005), “The cult of Macintosh”,
Consumption Markets & Culture, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 205-217.
Berendt, J., Uhrich, S. and Thompson, S.A. (2018),
“Marketing, get ready to rumble – how rivalry promotes
distinctiveness for brands and consumers”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 88, pp. 161-172.
Berger, J. and Heath, C. (2007), “Where consumers diverge
from others: identity signaling and product domains”,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 121-134.
Bhattacharya, C.B. and Sen, S. (2003), “Consumer–company
identification: a framework for understanding consumers’
relationships with companies”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 67
No. 2, pp. 76-88.
Black, I. and Veloutsou, C. (2017), “Working consumers: co-
creation of brand identity, consumer identity and brand
community identity”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 70,
pp. 416-429.
Chan, C., Berger, J. and Van Boven, L. (2012), “Identifiable
but not identical: combining social identity and uniqueness
motives in choice”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 39
No. 3, pp. 561-573.
Cheng, S.Y.Y., White, T.B. and Chaplin, L.N. (2012), “The
effects of self-brand connections on responses to brand
failure: a new look at the consumer–brand relationship”,
Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 280-288.
Converse, B.A. and Reinhard, D.A. (2016), “On rivalry and
goal pursuit: shared competitive history, legacy concerns,
and strategy selection”, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 110 No. 2, pp. 191-213.
Curina, I., Francioni, B., Hegner, S.M. and Cioppi, M.
(2020), “Brand hate and non-repurchase intention: a service
context perspective in a cross-channel setting”, Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 54, pp. 1-10.
Cuthbertson, A. (2017), “Samsung ad ruthlessly mocks iPhone
X ‘Notch’ with Apple fanboy haircut”, Newsweek, 6
November, available at: www.newsweek.com/samsung-ad-
mocks-iphone-x-notch-apple-fanboy-haircut-702439 (accessed
7 September 2020).
Dessart, L., Veloutsou, C. and Morgan-Thomas, A. (2020),
“Brand negativity: a relational perspective on anti-brand
community participation”, European Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 54 No. 7, pp. 1761-1785.
Diel, S., Buck, C. and Eymann, T. (2018), “Your smartphone,
my smartphone - how smartphone ownership determines
social group affiliation”, HI International Conference on System
Sciences 2018 (HICSS-51), available at: https://aisel.aisnet.
org/hicss-51/os/topics_in_os/7
Elbedweihy, A.M., Jayawardhena, C., Elsharnouby, M.H. and
Elsharnouby, T.H. (2016), “Customer relationship
building: the role of brand attractiveness and consumer–
brand identification”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69
No. 8, pp. 2901-2910.
Engheim, E. (2019), “The reasons behind the unique look of
Tesla’s Cybertruck”, 27 November, available at: https://medium.
com/@Jernfrost/the-reasons-behind-the-unique-look-of-
teslas-cybertruck-30556da23a4a (accessed 7 September
2020).
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Escalas, J.E. and Bettman, J.R. (2005), “Self-construal,
reference groups, and brand meaning”, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 378-389.
Escalas, J.E. and Bettman, J.R. (2009), “Self-brand
connections: the role of reference groups and celebrity
endorsers in the creation of brand meaning”, Handbook of
Brand Relationships, ME Sharpe, Armonk, New York, NY,
pp. 107-123.
Ewing, M.T., Wagstaff, P.E. and Powell, I.H. (2013), “Brand
rivalry and community conflict”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 4-12.
Fassnacht, M., Brexendorf, T.O. and Simon, C. (2016), “The
impact of external social and internal personal forces on
consumers’ brand community engagement on Facebook”,
Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 25 No. 5,
pp. 409-423.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Structural equation
models with unobservable variables and measurement error:
algebra and statistics”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18
No. 3, pp. 382-388.
Fournier, S. (1998), “Consumers and their brands: developing
relationship theory in consumer research”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 343-373.
Füller, J. and Bilgram, V. (2017), “The moderating effect of
personal features on the consequences of an enjoyable co-
creation experience”, Journal of Product & Brand
Management, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 386-401.
Gong, T. (2018), “Customer brand engagement behavior in
online brand communities”, Journal of Services Marketing,
Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 286-299.
Hatch, M.J. (2018), Organization Theory: Modern, Symbolic,
and Postmodern Perspectives, Oxford University Press.
Hegner, S.M., Fetscherin, M. and van Delzen, M. (2017),
“Determinants and outcomes of brand hate”, Journal of
Product & Brand Management, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 13-25.
Hickman, T. and Ward, J. (2007), “The dark side of brand
community: inter-group stereotyping, trash talk, and
schadenfreude”, ACR North American Advances.
Hollenbeck, C.R. and Zinkhan, G.M. (2010), “Anti-brand
communities, negotiation of brand meaning, and the
learning process: the case of Wal-Mart”, Consumption
Markets & Culture, Routledge, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 325-345.
Hugenberg, K. and Bodenhausen, G.V. (2004), “Category
membership moderates the inhibition of social identities”,
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 40 No. 2,
pp. 233-238.
Ilhan, B.E., Kübler, R.V. and Pauwels, K.H. (2018), “Battle of
the brand fans: impact of brand attack and defense on social
media”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 43, pp. 33-51.
Kaur, P., Dhir, A., Rajala, R. and Dwivedi, Y. (2018), “Why
people use online social media brand communities”, Online
Information Review, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 205-221.
Kemp, E., Childers, C.Y. and Williams, K.H. (2012), “Place
branding: creating self-brand connections and brand
advocacy”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 21
No. 7, pp. 508-515.
Kim, D., Chun, H. and Lee, H. (2014), “Determining the
factors that influence college students’ adoption of
smartphones”, Journal of the Association for Information
Science and Technology, Vol. 65 No. 3, pp. 578-588.
 A conceptual framework and empirical evidence
Junyun Liao et al.
Kucharska, W. (2017), “Consumer social network brand
identification and personal branding. How do social network
users choose among brand sites?”, edited by Wright, L.T.,
Cogent Business & Management, Vol. 4 No. 1, doi: 10.1080/
23311975.2017.1315879.
Kuenzel, S. and Vaux Halliday, S. (2008), “Investigating
antecedents and consequences of brand identification”,
Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 17 No. 5,
pp. 293-304.
Kuo, Y.-F. and Feng, L.-H. (2013), “Relationships among
community interaction characteristics, perceived benefits,
community commitment, and oppositional brand loyalty in
online brand communities”, International Journal of
Information Management, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 948-962.
Kuo, Y.-F. and Hou, J.-R. (2017), “Oppositional brand loyalty
in online brand communities: perspectives on social identity
theory and consumer-brand relationship”, Journal of
Electronic Commerce Research, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 254-268.
Lam, S.K. (2012), “Identity-motivated marketing
relationships: research synthesis, controversies, and research
agenda”, AMS Review, Vol. 2 Nos 2/4, pp. 72-87.
Lam, S.K., Ahearne, M., Hu, Y. and Schillewaert, N. (2010),
“Resistance to brand switching when a radically new brand is
introduced: a social identity theory perspective”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 74 No. 6, pp. 128-146.
Lam, S.K., Ahearne, M., Mullins, R., Hayati, B. and
Schillewaert, N. (2013), “Exploring the dynamics of
antecedents to consumer–brand identification with a new
brand”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 41
No. 2, pp. 234-252.
LeBoeuf, R.A., Shafir, E. and Bayuk, J.B. (2010), “The
conflicting choices of alternating selves”, Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 111 No. 1,
pp. 48-61.
Liang, R., Guo, W. and Zhang, L. (2019), “Exploring
oppositional loyalty and satisfaction in firm-hosted
communities in China”, Internet Research, Vol. 30 No. 2, doi:
10.1108/INTR-07-2018-0344.
Lin, L. (2010), “The relationship of consumer personality trait,
brand personality and brand loyalty: an empirical study of
toys and video games buyers”, Journal of Product & Brand
Management, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 4-17.
Lisjak, M., Lee, A.Y. and Gardner, W.L. (2012), “When a
threat to the brand is a threat to the self: the importance of
brand identification and implicit self-esteem in predicting
defensiveness”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
Vol. 38 No. 9, pp. 1120-1132.
Liu, T.-C., Wang, C.-Y. and Wu, L.-W. (2010), “Moderators
of the negativity effect: commitment, identification, and
consumer sensitivity to corporate social performance”,
Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 54-70.
McCracken, G. (1986), “Culture and consumption: a
theoretical account of the structure and movement of the
cultural meaning of consumer goods”, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 71-84.
Maehle, N. and Shneor, R. (2010), “On congruence between
brand and human personalities”, Journal of Product & Brand
Management, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 44-53.
Marin, L., Ruiz, S. and Rubio, A. (2009), “The role of identity
salience in the effects of corporate social responsibility on
Journal of Product & Brand Management
consumer behavior”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 84 No. 1,
pp. 65-78.
Marticotte, F., Arcand, M. and Baudry, D. (2016), “The
impact of brand evangelism on oppositional referrals towards
a rival brand”, Journal of Product & Brand Management,
Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 538-549.
Mulyanegara, R.C., Tsarenko, Y. and Anderson, A. (2009),
“The big five and brand personality: investigating the impact
of consumer personality on preferences towards particular
brand personality”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 16
No. 4, pp. 234-247.
Muniz, A.M. and Hamer, L.O. (2001), “Us versus them:
oppositional brand loyalty and the cola wars”, Advances in
Consumer Research, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 355-361.
Muniz, A.M. and O’Guinn, T.C. (2001), “Brand
community”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 27 No. 4,
pp. 412-432.
Myers, D.G. and Lamm, H. (1976), “The group polarization
phenomenon”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 83 No. 4,
pp. 602-627.
Naumann, K., Bowden, J. and Gabbott, M. (2020),
“Expanding customer engagement: the role of negative
engagement, dual valences and contexts”, European Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 7, pp. 1469-1499.
Olson, E.L. (2018), “Are rival team fans a curse for home team
sponsors? The moderating effects of fit, oppositional loyalty,
and league sponsoring”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 29 No. 1,
pp. 115-122.
Osuna Ramírez, S.A., Veloutsou, C. and Morgan-Thomas, A.
(2019), “I hate what you love: brand polarization and
negativity towards brands as an opportunity for brand
management”, Journal of Product & Brand Management,
Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 614-632.
Oyserman, D. (2009a), “Identity-based motivation:
implications for action-readiness, procedural-readiness, and
consumer behavior”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 19
No. 3, pp. 250-260.
Oyserman, D. (2009b), “Identity-based motivation and
consumer behavior”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 19
No. 3, pp. 276-279.
Phillips-Melancon, J. and Dalakas, V. (2014), “Brand rivalry
and consumers’ schadenfreude: the case of Apple”, Service
Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 73-186.
Popp, B. and Woratschek, H. (2017), “Consumer–brand
identification revisited: an integrative framework of brand
identification, customer satisfaction, and price image and
their role for brand loyalty and word of mouth”, Journal of
Brand Management, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 250-270.
Rao, V.R. and Steckel, J.H. (1991), “A polarization model for
describing group preferences”, Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 108-118.
Reed, A., Forehand, M.R., Puntoni, S. and Warlop, L. (2012),
“Identity-based consumer behavior”, International Journal of
Research in Marketing, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 310-321.
Rodhain, A. (2006), “Brands and the identification process of
children”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 33 No. 1,
pp. 549-555.
Sihvonen, J. (2019), “Understanding the drivers of consumer–
brand identification”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 26
No. 5, pp. 583-594.
 A conceptual framework and empirical evidence
Junyun Liao et al.
So, K.K.F., King, C., Hudson, S. and Meng, F. (2017), “The
missing link in building customer brand identification: the
role of brand attractiveness”, Tourism Management, Vol. 59,
pp. 640-651.
Stokburger-Sauer, N., Ratneshwar, S. and Sen, S. (2012),
“Drivers of consumer–brand identification”, International
Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 406-418.
Sundie, J.M., Ward, J.C., Beal, D.J., Chin, W.W. and Geiger-
Oneto, S. (2009), “Schadenfreude as a consumption-related
emotion: feeling happiness about the downfall of another’s
product”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 19 No. 3,
pp. 356-373.
Tajfel, H., Billig, M.G., Bundy, R.P. and Flament, C. (1971),
“Social categorization and intergroup behaviour”, European
Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 149-178.
Tajfel, H. and Turner, J.C. (1986), “The social identity theory
of intergroup behavior”, in Worchel, S. and Austin, W.
(Eds), Psychology of Intergroup Relations, Nelson Hall,
Chicago, doi: 10.4324/9780203505984-16.
Thompson, S.A., Loveland, J.M. and Castro, I.A. (2019),
“From rumor to release: does product release influence
WOM in brand communities dedicated to technology
products?”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 53 No. 2,
pp. 345-365.
Thompson, S.A. and Sinha, R.K. (2008), “Brand communities and
new product adoption: the influence and limits of oppositional
loyalty”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 72 No. 6, pp. 65-80.
Tian, K.T., Bearden, W.O. and Hunter, G.L. (2001),
“Consumers’ need for uniqueness: scale development and
validation”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 28 No. 1,
pp. 50-66.
Tiggemann, M. and Anesbury, T. (2000), “Negative
stereotyping of obesity in children: the role of controllability
beliefs”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 30 No. 9,
pp. 1977-1993.
Torres, P., Augusto, M. and Godinho, P. (2017), “Predicting
high consumer-brand identification and high repurchase:
necessary and sufficient conditions”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 79, pp. 52-65.
Triandis, H.C. (2018), Individualism and Collectivism,
Routledge.
Tsai, H.-T. and Bagozzi, R.P. (2014), “Contribution behavior
in virtual communities: cognitive, emotional, and social
influences”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 143-164.
Tuškej, U., Golob, U. and Podnar, K. (2013), “The role of
consumer–brand identification in building brand relationships”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 53-59.
Veloutsou, C., Chatzipanagiotou, K. and Christodoulides, G.
(2020), “The consumer-based brand equity deconstruction
and restoration process: lessons from unliked brands”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 111, pp. 41-51.
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Walsh, G., Schaarschmidt, M. and Ivens, S. (2017), “Effects of
customer-based corporate reputation on perceived risk and
relational outcomes: empirical evidence from gender
moderation in fashion retailing”, Journal of Product & Brand
Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 227-238.
Wolter, J.S., Brach, S., Cronin, J.J. and Bonn, M. (2016),
“Symbolic drivers of consumer–brand identification and
disidentification”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 2,
pp. 785-793.
Wong, S. (2020), “Smartphone market in China - statistics &
facts”, Www.Statista.Com, 27 April, available at: www.statista.
com/topics/1416/smartphone-market-in-china/ (accessed 2 May
2020).
Zenker, S., Braun, E. and Petersen, S. (2017), “Branding the
destination versus the place: the effects of brand complexity
and identification for residents and visitors”, Tourism
Management, Vol. 58, pp. 15-27.
Zhou, Z., Zhang, Q., Su, C. and Zhou, N. (2012), “How do
brand communities generate brand relationships?
Intermediate mechanisms”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 65 No. 7, pp. 890-895.
About the authors
Junyun Liao, PhD, is an Assistant Professor of Marketing in
the School of Management at Jinan University. He received
doctorate from Wuhan University. His research interests
include brand community, social media, and word of mouth.
His research has appeared in Journal of Business Research,
Journal of Product & Brand Management, Computers in Human
Behavior, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications,
among others.
Xuebing Dong, PhD, is an Assistant Professor of Marketing
in the School of Management at Shanghai University. He
received a doctorate from Huazhong University of Science
and Technology. His research interests include brand
community, social media and video marketing. His research
has appeared in Electronic Commerce Research and
Application, Internet Research and Information Technology
& People. Xuebing Dong is the corresponding author and can
be contacted at: dongxuebing116@sina.com.
Ziwei Luo, PhD, is an Associate Professor of Marketing in the
Institute for Enterprise Development at Jinan University. Her
research interests include brand management and corporate
social responsibility.
Rui Guo, PhD, is an Assistant Professor of Business Analytics
at Saint Mary’s College of California. His research interests
are data analytics, machine learning, social media, information
systems and cloud computing.