These images are visceral, like punch in the gut! We generally respond if somebody hits in the sensitive parts of your body, like your eyes. In this sense, these are visceral and felt attacking my eyes.
Anonymous Consumer
Semiotics is the study of how meanings can be produced and communicated through different signs and symbols as part of our social life. 1 Symbols can easily signify meanings and thus have strong communication value. Similarly, brand logos and symbols signify and enhance brand meanings. Such symbols and brand semiotics have strong communication value in many social and market settings. Put simply, such brand symbols and semiotics function like a linguistic system when communicating with consumers. Semiotics and human beings desire to communicate with symbols go back till prehistoric times. The pictures and symbols drawn in the Peck-Merle cave and many other caves around the world show a strong connection between the prehistoric cavemen and today’s digital civilization. This pictorial and symbolic evidence from long ago fills us with curiosity about what our ancestors were trying to communicate. Today’s human beings are doing the same thing our ancestors did in their time: creating symbols and signs to tell their story to the world. Whether drawn on rock walls or on a digital screen, both people are trying to convey meanings to the present and the future. Thus, our ancestors and modern “homo-digitus ” are meaning-makers or, using Chandler’s term, homo-significans . 2
Online consumers, or homo-digitus , are often visually literate consumers of our image-based digital economic systems. 3 The building blocks of our image-based economies are the meanings imbued in various digital signs and symbols. The complex and paradoxical interactions between the production and consumption of semiotic artifacts (also conceptualized as “consuming representation”) determine the real creation of economic value in image-based economic systems. 4 The valuation of semiotically enriched artifacts eventually aligns with consumer brand values . In many situations, brand values are worth more than the paper value of the company in today’s markets. 5 This shows the importance of symbolic and semiotic value systems in modern image-based economies.
The role of semiotic value creation is paramount because of increasingly digitalized consumer markets in today’s world. Self-publishing on the Internet enables millions of consumer-generated symbols and signs to flow through digital platforms every day. 6 Consumers can now loudly and freely represent themselves, they can easily design their own versions of symbols and brand logos to broadcast, subvert and re-code corporate messages, and re-brand a brand meaning with digital media. 7 Many consumers are communicating with each other through digital images, symbols, signs, essentially creating new languages in their digital consumption and communication. These communication processes are so fruitful and revolutionary that cyberspace may be the most liberatory environment for the expression of identities and ideas about social issues relevant to the consumption patterns of homo-digitus as discussed in “ Semiotic Democracy ” 8 and “ Semiotic Disobedience ” 9 in the semiotics literature.
Symbols and semiotics of consumer brand hate , as in the case of anti-branding Web sites, are the true reflection of consumer’s hate and negativity they feel against the brands. Many of the brand haters develop their version of brand meanings and symbols to reflect their hate and send hateful messages to market audiences. Many of the anti-branding haters sometimes use drama and sometimes humor to demonize, criminalize, and dehumanize such targeted brands with strong anti-branding images and voices. In my research, I found that many anti-branding haters use the image of Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany’s ideological symbols to associate such hated brands with Hitler’s Nazi Germany. They use Hitler to demonize the hated brands. I will call this “hitlerization of corporate brands” in the following discussions. The purpose of such anti-branding efforts is to influence other consumers’ perception and create a negative consumption trend in the markets in order to hurt such brands as they are hated deeply by the anti-branders. Most of the anti-branding semiotics created by brand haters can be seen as street gratifies, bumper stickers, t-shirts but mostly on the Internet available in various digital consumption places. As discussed in the previous section, the Internet empowered consumers technologically, and now consumers can easily develop their own version of brand images, slogans , and even commercials to subvert the corporate creation of brand meanings and associations. However, these kinds of semiotic emancipation in consumer markets are never seen before.
Thus, the question at this point is: “what are the fundamental semiotic structures of consumer anti-branding designs, advertisements or ‘ subvertisement ’ and presentations that can potentially impact brand meanings?” What are the basic semiotic codes used by anti-branding haters ? Also, what is the impact of such hate semiotics on ordinary consumers and their purchase decisions? These questions are needed to be discussed to give a better perspective of how the brand hate can influence markets and consumption decisions. In order to answer these questions, I will start discussing the brand semiotics and then anti-branding semiotics and digital anti-branding semiotics with examples and consumer interviews in the following sections.
Brand Semiotics
Anything can be a semiotic sign as long as it represents something beyond its sheer meaning or signify something other than its physical meaning. 10 For example, when you look at the Mercedes-Benz car logo, many people don’t see a sign of a circle split into three equal pieces; but they say they see expensive car or a social status sign. Thus, semiotics does not necessarily focus on the imminent meaning of the signs and symbols (Saussurean semiotics) but also on how the meaning of a symbol is re-generated by situation in the broader cultural and social contexts of consumer decisions (Peircean semiotics). 11 A Saussurean perspective indicates a more structural semiotics since it focuses more on pure text analysis to reveal the actualization process of meaning-making 12 ; a Peircean perspective focuses on a broader and a more dynamic semiotics by investigating the ways signs are situated in cultural and social contexts. 13 Clearly, Peircean semiotics benefits from Saussurean perspectives, but goes beyond the general Saussurean meaning process. Saussurean semiotics focuses on the sign, a brand logo ’s sheer meaning, while Peircean semiotics examines the placement of a brand logo in an advertisement—examining the relationships between brand identity , brand slogan , and other possible sign and code systems that will affect communications with consumers. It follows then that brands can become inseparable semiotic entities, icons in a consumption environment. In essence, this is a metamorphosis of brand symbols and signs into a conveyance of meaning for a living person or an identity . 14 Thus, “branding semiotics” are the building of a central meaning system where the brand symbols work as the letters or words of a consumption language . The more that brand symbols and branding language can be easily understood and shared among consumers, the easier it is for brand meaning systems to become alternative social systems and generate economic value. 15 Thus, “branding semiotics ” is a socio-cognitive semiotic process that ties consumers to a common consumption and meaning system. 16
Brand logos are combination of many different signs and symbols. For example, Apple’s brand logo , a bitten apple, signifies a disobedience and the presence of knowledge, hope, and anarchy, by using a well-known biblical image—a bitten apple. 17 Some brand logos are purely alphanumeric signs, such as IBM, 3M, and Coca-Cola; some others are iconic images or symbols, such as Apple’s bitten apple, or Shell Oil’s yellow seashell; and many logos are combinations of signs and symbols. 18 The colors and lines used in brand logos also support the recognition and understandability of the company philosophy embedded in the logos. Both IBM and Apple used parallel horizontal stripes in early versions of their logos, stripes which are believed to signify the “fundamental values of corporate America’s efficiency and commitment”. 19 Similarly, the colors of letters or images can very efficiently send a brand message. 20 IBM, for example, is known as “Big Blue” because of the intensive use of blue, associated with the ocean depths, to signify deep knowledge and endless information storage. Thus, both IBM and Apple provided early example of brand connotation examples in the modern branding world.
It is a constant struggle for companies to develop brand semiotics that unify them with their consumers. During this struggle, consumer can decode company-generated brand meanings in totally different ways—positively, negatively, and otherwise. 21 This consumer decoding can reduce the semiotic power of company-generated brand meanings and lead to meaning deformation. Polysemic re-interpretations can also appear in subversive forms called “resisting readings”. 22 If a decoding consumer dislikes the brand due to bad experiences resisting reading can eventually open the door to direct semiotic attacks by the consumer. A semiotic destruction of company-generated brand meanings is intended to destroy corporate brand value and identity by dissecting and re-coding corporate messages with informative and sometimes humorous subvertisements and/or counter-advertisements . 23 This is how consumer anti-branding haters generate new consumption or anti-consumption meanings to change the course of the consumption.
Brand Hate and Anti-Branding Semiotics
The idea behind brand hate and anti-branding efforts is to create noise—a lack of communication or a miscommunication—in the corporation-to-consumer socio-cognitive semiotic communication processes. The general media communication literature is a good starting point for analyzing the effects of consumer brand hate and anti-branding meaning and communication processes. Hall (2001) classifies media messages in terms of the modes of interpretation and adaptation patterns used by the receiver or consumer. In this context, a consumer might fully comprehend and adopt the semiotic message, but most of the time they do not fully comprehend it and blindly enter company-created closed-consumption circles. Alternatively, some consumers prefer to avoid consumption circles by passively rejecting company-created brand messages, or they negotiate and modify the meaning in public spaces on the Internet to express their opposition to the message.
In a traditional marketing environment, brands are viewed as a firm-provided property. 24 Consumers have no, or very limited, input to meaning creation processes and unconditionally accept the corporate-created semiotic value systems as if there were no other options. The purpose behind this process of brand iconization process is to develop a perceptually closed socio-communicative system between company and consumer; a process largely mediated by corporate brand symbols and signs. This brand semiotic system is not a productive communication process from a consumer point of view.
However, some consumers show their disagreements with corporate meaning creation systems by leaving the markets (silently or loudly). Although such brand logos and associations are mostly created and developed by corporations, the control of brand semiotics is now shifting from companies to consumers with the advent of the personalized and empowering digital technology. Now, consumers are negotiating brand meanings with companies, talk back, and bring negative publicity to the attention of the company and other consumers via online platforms. Thus, in digital markets, brand meaning-making started shifting from marketers to consumer semioticians who feel hate toward specific brand and digital anti-branding semiotics was born. Thus, digital anti-branding semioticians are implementing fundamental semiotic rules while developing negative brand meanings in order to reflect their hate and affect consumer markets.
Digital Anti-Branding Discourse
In order to understand the semiotic rules of brand hate meaning created by digital anti-branding semioticians, I have collected anti-branding images and signs targeted to the most valuable global brands. The total value of the brands is described as around 400 billion dollars of intangible value. The average single brand value in the top ten brand list is estimated as 46 billion dollars; thus, the selected brands are a big portion of the image-based economy . Furthermore, these top ten most valuable brands have been at the center of social attention and have deeply impacted consumption culture since before the last decade. These brands are often criticized and attacked by anti-branders, perhaps, in part, because of the enormous image-based economic value they represent (defined as “Negative Double Jeopardy” [NDJ] previously). I went through 2600 brand hate images, and I have conducted a brand discourse analysis to reveal the messages anti-branding semioticians are trying to narrate.
I first analyzed the individual anti-branding semiotic codes such as colors, language, and symbols. People (and even animals) are sensitive to meanings or associations created by different colors (e.g., the common belief that the color red makes a bull crazy or increases blood pressure). Colors are an effective and expressive tool for affecting individual feelings, personality , and identity . 25 Thus, I try to understand the most dominant color combinations of all the consumer anti-branding images and logos used by the brand haters . After the original brand logo colors, the most used color is “Black” (33% of the time), and the second most used is “Red” (28% of the time). “Black” is often seen as symbolizing death, mourning, evil, and opposition (rebellious feelings), while “Red” is generally seen in Western cultures as symbolizing passion, danger, anger , and hell (a religious reference). A study, in fact, found that wearing black color makes the person who wears black more aggressiveness as well as makes others perceive the person who wears black is the source of aggression . 26 Similarly, some other studies claimed that red color increase person’s metabolic state, and in fact, scarlet can even make people’s blood pressure rise. 27 Black, red, and brown colors are also associated with sadness and are defined as sad colors. 28 “Black and Red” together are also defined as “fire and brimstone ”, “the colors of Hell ”. 29 Interpreting anti-branding colors from a religious point of view suggests that anti-branders conceptualize corporate brands as sinners who deserve “the ultimate punishment of Hell”. Alternatively, red and black used haphazardly around the object or painting indicates out of control emotions and pain (defined as “ semiotics of pain ” by Oswald 2012), and people often describe their pain and dark mood by using such colors. Other interpretations, from both religious and nonreligious perspectives, are possible, desirable, and informative, but, in general, the color codes used by brand haters demonize corporate meanings and indicate that these consumers are both passionate about their views and are feeling sad, depressed, and frustrated by the actions of the targeted corporations. Perhaps, associate such hated brands with the negativity of hell.
Moreover, I also analyzed the anti-branding symbolic codes . This process provides an approach to determining what anti-branding semioticians are intending to say and reveal about the corporate brands they target. In order to understand which themes are used most frequently to unpack the meanings of these anti-branding efforts, I have calculated the frequency of the signifiers and signified of the symbols used in the anti-branding images. The percentages indicate that most of the time anti-branding semioticians are associating the actions of their targets with “violence and murder”, viewing them as equivalent to murderers and express their rejection by putting an “X” or a “NO sign” on the brand logo to indicate that the brand has no place in their life. Among the brands examined Coca-Cola is seen as an evil and imperialist corporation poisoning consumers with unhealthy products that lead to diabetes and obesity. McDonald’s is also seen as an imperialist provider of unhealthy products that lead to obesity. Microsoft is criticized as a greedy provider of bad consumer products. Google is seen as yet another greedy corporation. Overall, consumers tend to express their anger and hate by creating violent scenes with the brand logos of targeted corporations.
Anti-branding semioticians focus on three major issues: irresponsible corporate practices that hurt consumers, greed, and an imperialist mentality (invading the consumer’s world and destroying their good value systems). The last one—an imperialist business mentality—is commonly directly associated with Nazism. The World-War-II Nazi movement was very destructive of lives, cultural value systems, art, and the intellectual heritage of Europe. Anti-branders use this context because they perceive corporate actions and practices as too Nazi-like, and/or because they can generate attention by portraying the corporation as “Nazi-like”. The red–black color combination, discussed in the previous section, is also a major Nazi color scheme. Anti-branders may feel like they are losing their freedom to dictatorial corporate brands, resulting in a massacre of their value systems and beliefs. Many anti-branders use swastika signs next to or onto brand logos to associate the corporate meanings with Hitler’s fascism. The “Hitlerization ” of corporate brand logos and meanings is an effort to focus the attention of ordinary consumers on the dark side of targeted brands. Hitler has a strong overt and subliminal level association with evil in consumer minds and that association clearly appears in consumer anti-branding processes. Consequently, Hitler is a building block of modern mythology: a devil -like brand icon active in consumption markets. Interestingly, no other study has been identified in the literature that has found images of Hitler used for branding implications in this way.
I also analyzed the verbal semiotic clues to understand the language of such brand haters . In general, anti-branding haters create subversions of brand names and slogans directly associated with the brand. Consumers’ subverted brand names and brand slogans by using general very violent and vindictive language to verbalize their hate . Consumers embed many negative words into brand and product names, creating their own version of anti-brand names. For example, McDonald’s is subverted into “McCruelty” and “McDiabetes”; Apple’s iPod and iPhone are subverted into “iFail” and “iCrap”. In addition, anti-branders have successfully subverted corporate messages and slogans as follows: McDonald’s famous “I’m lovin it” slogan is subverted into “I’m hatin it”, “I’m destroyin it”, and Intel’s “Intel Inside” slogan is subverted into “Evil Inside”, “Intel Inside, Idiot Outside”, and so on. Clearly, consumer anti-branding efforts can successfully subvert and mock targeted corporate brand meanings and slogans while entertaining their followers.
Digital anti-branding discourse
As it can be seen from Fig. 5.1, both visual and verbal codes indicated that anti-branding semioticians are trying to signify Hell and demonize the corporate brands. Anti-branding semioticians seem to use this very powerful visual and verbal semiotic “hell-coding ” to redefine brand logos and influence other consumers by inspiring a reflexive revulsion . The discourse analysis also showed similar findings with the extraction of symbolic codes . Symbolic codes also revealed slightly different findings where guns, murder, and bloody scenes are used to accuse corporate brands of criminalizing and dehumanizing in the presentation of their consumption worlds. Corporate greed that undervalues human needs and welfare is also signified by associations with Hitler and Nazism. Finally, the discourse analysis indicated that digital anti-branders use drama, humor, and exaggeration to create a strong digital anti-branding voice by presenting visual semiotic codes that demonize, criminalize, dehumanize , and “hitlerize”, positioning themselves as against corporate greed and wrongdoings .
It seems brand haters are capable to re-brand corporate brands with negative meanings. But, the question at this point is if such anti-branding semiotics are understood by the consumers or decoded successfully. If so, how do these negative and hateful branding impact consumers perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs?
So, I have conducted another research and use some sample anti-barding images to discern how receivers locate a concept in semantic space by asking them their impressions of consumer artifacts. First, I have asked five professional graphic designers to go through hundreds of images collected on the Internet and identified those which are highly influential to them from an artistic point of view. These designers are experts who are equipped with knowledge and talent to analyze the semiotic power and deep meaning systems created by anti-branding semioticians. The experts are agreed on (agreement levels varied between 80 and 100%) four anti-branding symbols.
All the selected consumer subvertisements are fundamental examples of how anti-branders view their relationships with the targeted brand and how they portray their negative feelings about corporate brand meanings. And, I have conducted face-to-face in-depth interviews with consumers for the selected anti-branding images. Most of the consumers interviewed were not necessarily anti-corporate or anti-branding fans or supporters, but were aware of these alternative interpretations. My purpose was to develop a basic understanding and interpretative framework for decoding consumer approaches to negative semiotic meanings. This is an important test as it reveals if brand haters have reached talent and impression levels like their corporate counterparts.
The interviews focused around three constructive dimensions: “message clarity ”, “fact seeking ”, and “hostility vs. entertainment ”. “Message clarity” is defined as the consumer ability to decode the semiotic representations perceived in the anti-branding images. This measurement is the semiotic effectiveness of an anti-branding image at successfully prompting the consumer perception of the anti-branding message. If the message of the anti-branding image is perceived as true and similar to the consumer’s experiences, knowledge, and belief systems, the consumer is less prone to find a way to make sense of the message in a different way. Alternatively, the interviewed consumers tended to review their memories trying to find something to justify/verify what the semiotic message seemed to say. This is directly linked to the credibility and acceptance of the anti-branding message and is conceptualized in this study as “fact seeking ”. Interestingly, consumers made an effort to explain why a person would be producing these kinds of negative images. Finally, some consumers were really entertained by the humor in the signifiers and the signified , and others were offended by them and found them hostile, which is discussed as the “hostility vs. entertainment ” component. Although hostility was easily detected in my earlier study, consumers were also able to find some humor in the anti-branding images.
Capitalist Coca-Cola (Slogan Subversion)
The creators of the selected anti-Coca-Cola image used the same colors (red and white) as Coca-Cola, its famous swift sign (the white wavy line in the middle), and the same basic slogan (“Enjoy”). The creators subverted and politicized this slogan (“Enjoy-Coca Cola”) into “Enjoy Capitalism”.
The motive behind this re-branding, attacking Coca-Cola’s “wild capitalist approaches and worldwide colonist mentality”, was also accurately decoded by the majority of consumers interviewed.
Message Clarity
: The majority of consumers interviewed agreed that Coca-Cola is a symbol of capitalism, and that capitalism is easily seen as a greedy system, as described by these respondents:
They are making fun of materialism and the negative sides of capitalism—how Coke can make millions of dollars while little guys struggle. [24, Female, Social-Media Company Owner]
There is a negative connotation—because (in capitalism), one group of people dominating others…it is power struggle…upper class is in control, and look down, say hey little guys (lower and middle class) who drink Coca-Cola, and control them through Coke. [32, Female, Teacher and Student MA Psychology]
On the other hand, a few consumers found some ambiguity in the message as indicated by this interviewee:
This seems like an anti-capitalism message! Feels actually either way (depends on who’s car its on) …could be Dick Cheney’s car, or Ralph Nader’s car. [30, Male, Videographer]
This ambiguity might cause some brand dilution problems since consumers were not able to consistently differentiate between positive interpretations of the comment on Coca-Cola’s image and the anti-brander perspective as revealed by another study participant:
When I saw this first I thought Coke and then I saw Capitalism in there, that made me feel that this is manipulating. [43, Female, Supervisor]
Fact seeking
: Although some respondents perceived the message as true and persuasive, some indicated that the message is politically driven and snide. Most of the fact seeking efforts focused on the definition of capitalism and the long-standing ineffectiveness of Coke’s ability to create new traditions and knowledge while creating a big economic gap between incumbent soda manufacturers, as shown by these interview quotes:
Coke is still around even though they have been challenged by many competitors in the past. They kept strong! However, people don’t have strong bonds they have used to these days. To be honest, it is like a government institution, so old, kind a part of an old system and establishment. It is not a monopoly, but close to it! [53, Male, IT Consultant]
Coke is big-broad sweet drink, something that it is not really good for you, but it is out there…everywhere…I would probably give a little bit smirks! [55, Male, Architecture]
Hostility vs. Entertainment
: The majority of the consumers found the image funny and entertaining, and some found it to be more neutral than hostile:
Funny, creative…it is sending the message across. Makes me want to educate myself about Coca-Cola. [32, Female, Teacher and Student-MA Psychology]
This is like “beating a dead horse” Coke has been a subject of criticism, so it doesn’t bother me anymore. A little bit amusing, not much! [60+, Male, Retired-PhD]
Nazi Disney (Mascot Subversion)
The creators of this image used the famous Disney character Mickey Mouse. Two opposite meanings are integrated into this one image: Mickey and Hitler. Mickey’s eyes are replaced with swastikas and Mickey has Hitler’s iconic mustache and hairstyle. This re-branding of Mickey Mouse strongly associates the company with an incarnation of evil. Here, the perceived monopoly power of Disney is seen as creating an anti-democratic market environment and brainwashing effort leading to the figurative massacre of consumer lives and value systems, a direct analogy to Nazi actions (also discussed in the hitlerization of anti-branding images in the discourse investigation).
Message Clarity
: This image is perceived as confusing or disgusting, hence unclear and a clash of two opposite images, Disney and Hitler. Interviewee comments included:
It’s conflicting…for me it represents two extremes: extreme happiness (Disney) and extreme sadness (Hitler). It confuses me…feeling negative and conflicted. [43, Female, Supervisor]
Mickey Mouse and Hitler. I can’t connect them to each other…the happiest place on the world; you don’t want to have any association with Hitler! [46, Male, Engineer]
Fact Seeking
: Many of the interviewed consumers disagreed with the message presented in this image. Consumers had a hard time finding experiences in their lives to support the signified message in this image; thus, they perceived this image as biased. The image turned off the interviewees even though they were not fans of Disney. On the other hand, some of the interviewed consumers became intrigued and wanted to know more about Disney, although they generally found the image really disgusting, as observed here:
It is more intriguing, I want to know why they are bad. I really want to know why they do that! [26, Female, Preschool Teacher]
Hostility vs. Entertainment
: Almost all of the consumers interviewed found this image hostile, disgusting, and offensive. This anti-branding message was decoded as malicious and creepy by many of the consumers interviewed:
They are taking my Mickey and turn into something ugly and bad, I don’t like it! [42, Female, Small Business Owner]
Somebody got a sick sense of humor, gone too far! There is some cleverness in it, but over the top dark humor. [55, Male, Architect]
Satan Intel (Brand Logo and Slogan Subversion)
Creators of this ad used totally different colors (red and black) from the original logo colors (white and blue). Some consumers were able to decode the darker and more demonic colors in this image as I discussed in the demonization anti-branding discourse. The company slogan “Intel Inside” is here subverted to “Satan Inside”. Thus, this ad has a religious overtone.
The justification behind this attack focuses not on whether Intel’s computer processors provide high capacity and convenience to consumers, but instead focuses on whether the company is making it easy for companies and governments to benefit from stealing the personal information of consumers. Anti-branders are suggesting that Intel’s technology has another agenda (a “satanic” one, whether intended or not) that consumers are not aware of and perhaps would not approve of. This is also addressed in the criminalization anti-branding discourse as discussed earlier.
Message Clarity
: Although some interviewees found the message in this image to be clear, a majority was confused and unsure what the message was. Confusions were generally generated by the use of the word “Satan” or, since it is not a frequently noticed consumption product, by a lack of knowledge of the Intel brand. However, most respondents were able to decode the religion tone:
When someone says “Satan inside” that that means Satan possesses you! They are trying to say that Intel possess you and makes them all massed-up. I am not a PC user, I should be agreeing with this! [32, Female, Teacher-Student MA Psychology]
Reminds me Westboro Baptist church in the South (they protest almost everything, and a lot of hate bags) Test from God! Satan is corrupting you. [23, Female, Student]
Fact Seeking
: There was less fact-seeking logic occurring during conversations about this image. This might be because of the fact that the image used a religious tone, which also implied a conspiracy to a few people:
Conspiracy type of stuff. If you really knew what is going on inside, you wouldn’t buy the Intel. I don’t know enough about the Intel, their practices. [40, Female, Small Business Owner]
Anti-capitalist or anti-technology. Somebody who believes in conspiracy can find this true. [55, Male, Architect]
Hostility and Entertainment
: This anti-branding image was seen as negative, dark, and malicious by many interviewees:
Very dark, very black, negative side wide. I try not to go there. [60+, Female, Entrepreneur]
However, a few consumers were able to find some humor in this image:
I found this one funny-caustic humor! Burning-acid humor! Huge corporation entity they are making fun of Intel. [60+, Male, Broker]
Unhealthy McDonald’s (Brand Name and Logo Subversion)
The creators of this ad used McDonald’s golden arches and a red background, retaining the color combinations and symbols of the original brand image. Concerns about McDonald’s cheap and unhealthy fast food business model have gained the attention of consumers, markets, and governments. This ad brings the concerns to the forefront by embedding the word “diabetes” into the company name, subverting McDonalds’ name into “McDiabetes”. This image is a typical example of the dehumanization and criminalization in anti-branding discourse. The intent behind this subversion is to warn consumers about the health problems possibly created by McDonalds’ business model.
Message Clarity
: Almost all the consumers found the message very clear and fair:
Bingo! Somebody hit the nail on the head! Very funny, message is very clear and perfect—I agree with the creator of this ad. I don’t have to do too much thinking about this one…I thought it is right…I wish other people would step up, see it and rebel against it….critical and not really hostile! [43, Female, Supervisor]
The most straight forward one! Gets the message across! Kind a speaks to the future of America! I liked it! It is cool! [30, Male, Videographer]
Fact Seeking
: Most of the interviewees found the image and its message undoubtedly true. Most of the interviewed consumers already agreed with this anti-branding image and expressed some association with their lifestyle:
Everybody in my culture agrees with this…it’s like a cultural norm around here… [23, Female, Student]
This one you can’t really argue! Other ones were debatable, but this one is undeniably true. [23, Male, Student-Barista]
Some consumers even showed some anger as they express their agreement with this image:
McDonalds is a part of the institution and over the years developed such a strength, yet killing America, killing all of us! It is a cheap place, but contributing many health problems and they do nothing about it! They are creating a lot of pollution. I see their bags and trash everywhere! They are polluting our bodies and our environment. That makes me angry, so this logo is just right! [53, Male, IT Consultant]
Hostility and Entertainment
: Most of the consumers found this message entertaining and funny. In fact, some of them could not resist laughing and smiling during the interview:
It makes me laugh. Sad but it is true. I rolled my eyes and laughed when I saw this…so true! [23, Female, Student-Barista]
The McDonalds ad is also a unique example of how negativity and/or dark-humor can impressively impact consumer perceptions:
This is hilarious! I totally agree with it! Funny! Processed food we eat destroying our health, causes diabetes, obesity and also addictive… I liked it this one, it speaks to me! [41, Male, MD-Medical Doctor]
Comparisons of Anti-Branding Images
I presented all the anti-branding images together to the interviewees at the end of each interview. They were asked to compare the images and pick their favorite anti-branding images. The interviewee reactions and facial expressions changed with each anti-branding image they viewed. They generally looked a little bit puzzled when they saw the Coca-Cola anti-branding image, shocked and disturbed when they saw the Disney anti-branding image, confused when they saw the Intel anti-branding images, and they laughed or smiled when they saw the McDonalds’ anti-branding images.
Almost all of the consumers interviewed were more prone to accept the McDonalds and Coke anti-branding images, finding the images funny and friendly rather than satanic or evil; as described by the interviewees below:
Coke and McDonalds have elements of fun. Disney and Intel are not funny; they have some elements of a very dark side! Coke and McDonalds have more truth. I can’t even pass the photo (Disney) to see the connection between Hitler and Mickey Mouse connection… Disney and Intel are making real extreme statements, so I can’t even think what they are trying to associate. [24, Female, Social-Media Business Owner, emphasis added]
If you run into a person who wear t-shirt with this McDonald’s logo you want talk with him and have fun with him, but if you see a guy wear this Disney t-shirt you probably want to avoid him, because he is the one likely carrying gun! [60+, Male, Broker]
During the interviews, many consumers were not able to take their eyes away from and spent more time thinking about and analyzing the Disney and Intel images, trying to make sense of the extreme language. Some consumers also revealed being intrigued by the Disney and Intel images, even though the images were using aggressive language and religious and racist themes:
Disney and Intel are over the top, but they make me think more. I don’t necessarily disregard them, I am curious about them. Disney and Intel are more thought provoking. It made me think and learn more about them! [25, Female, Barista]
Disney and Intel, I liked it the least, but the most thought provoking! I started to think why they are doing that! There is more depth in these two (Disney and Intel), like a good book! [42, Female, Small Business Owner]
One of the possible reasons that consumers were intrigued by the Disney and Intel anti-brand images is because these ads shocked the interviewees when they first saw them. Since visual environments are populated with ever more digital images, many images are starting to lose their power . Developing shocking images can be an effort to attract more consumer attention 32 as explained by one of the interviewees:
Disney message has more shock value because immediately give you some flash…but it’s not clear or impressive because the message is not clear in these two (Intel and Disney) …there is no message on Intel and Disney other than shock value… [46, Male, Engineer, emphasis added]
As a result, consumer responses to selected anti-branding images were studied. Consumers found some humor (the McDonald’s subvertisment) in the studied anti-branding images and tried to justify why anti-branding semioticians use such derogatory and harsh language. This also supports the findings of the digital anti-branding discourse analysis. Specifically, consumers definitely indicated a semiotic distaste for the anti-branding Disney image. Disney was perceived as unfairly victimized and might receive sympathy from those who see this ad. Disney should be more worried about intrigued consumers who want to know more about the issues that prompted the anti-branding images. It seems companies who are attacked with opinionated and aggressive language should not worry about that speech because consumers often do not give credence to these kinds of approaches. The McDonalds image received more interest and acceptance than the other images in my study, consumers could easily identify with the image. It is clear that humor disarms people and makes it easier for consumers to feel compelled by and involved in the message represented if there is some confirming truth that can be found. In summation, even though all the messages studied were negative, consumers tried to perceive positive, clear, and constructive messages.
Brand images and symbols are indispensable parts of modern consumption culture and digitally mediated economic systems. In these systems, the value of the images is determined by the brand’s ability to connect cultural and social meaning systems with appropriate semiotic codes. The homo-digitus consumer now has the power and ability to subvert and reject marketer-generated brand meanings that conflict with their values. Thus, companies who do not talk about and renegotiate their semiotic meaning systems with consumers face losing control of their meaning systems to those same technologically advanced consumers.
There are signals that homo-digitus consumers are now able to fill the meaning gaps that result from corporate wrongdoings with negative brand meanings and semiotics in digital consumption spaces. My research revealed that consumers easily decode, accept, and willingly identify with humorous meanings more than with aggressive or malicious attacks , but that an aggressive and intriguing message has some potential to influence consumers. If consumers have prior knowledge or beliefs about what is subverted in the anti-branding ads the persuasion of the ad seems to increase significantly. Companies who are attacked by clear and funny agenda-driven messages may find that their brand images and identities will be hurt more than by aggressively designed negative consumer ads. However, companies should also focus on consumer messages with intriguing features, even when those features are negative.
In light of these findings, some important managerial and policy issues can be addressed as follows:
First, the identification of the “good consumer” is changing in modern markets. Corporations often see brand haters as problem kids, but what these consumers are really trying to do is bring their disappointments to the attention of corporations and the marketplace. Thus, a “good consumer” in this digital age is willing to directly share feedback, positive or negative, with the company. It was easy to ignore negative feedback before the Internet because negative responses were stuck among in-groups and usually not communicated to the company or others. As discussed earlier, consumer complaints are changing from a private experience to a public phenomenon as the number of digitally interconnected consumers increases. Traditional marketing philosophies underestimate the value and information richness of negative consumer feedback and neglect learning from negative feedback and comments. Some negative branding can be seen as disruptive and even anarchistic , but this same responsive rebranding can also stimulate market creativity, protect true expressive diversity, and eventually canalize public meanings for public benefit. Secondly, search engine companies are developing ways to search based on pictorial codification systems; understanding the meaning systems created by symbolic representations of brand images seems likely to foster the development of still better visual search engines for consumers to search the Internet with. Consumers are generating new semiotic codes every day; thus, there is a need to develop a search system that directs the user to the symbol or symbolic semiotic meaning she/he is looking for. Moreover, new businesses are emerging in digital image markets, such as Shutterstock and Instagram, which make it easier to stock and retail to the public billions of photographs, images, and illustrations, created by both amateurs and professionals.
Finally, companies are trying to increase their brand surveillance and legal actions against anti-branders in order to prevent the noncommercial use of their brands under Trademark Laws. Complicating the issue, many fan sites are filled with unauthorized copies of brand images and videos. Allowing consumer fan sites to use trademarked symbols freely while policing anti-branding creations is a significant dilemma for corporations. This quandary shows there is an urgent need for overhauling traditional trademark laws as millions of new brand images and semiotic codes become available every day for digital consumption. The consumption and production of digital symbols and semiotic images is evolving toward a strong and democratic digital image economy. By using and developing new meanings for images, we are creating new communication systems and consumption philosophies every day on the Internet. The use and consumption of digital images is increasing, and more research on digital branding and anti-branding semiotics will enhance the development of our modern and future image-based digital economy . Thus, the legality of such brand hate semiotics will be discussed in the following chapter.
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
Chandler (2002).
- 3.
Schroeder (2002).
- 4.
- 5.
- 6.
Wang (2013).
- 7.
Thompson and Arsel (2004), Thompson et al. (2006), Kucuk (2008, 2010, 2015), and Krishnamurthy and Kucuk (2009).
- 8.
- 9.
Katyal (2010).
- 10.
Chandler (2002).
- 11.
Mick et al. (2004).
- 12.
- 13.
Mick (1986).
- 14.
- 15.
- 16.
Thellefsen et al. (2007).
- 17.
- 18.
- 19.
Floch (2000).
- 20.
- 21.
Puntoni et al. (2010).
- 22.
- 23.
- 24.
- 25.
Mella (1988).
- 26.
Frank and Gilovich (1988).
- 27.
Singh (2006).
- 28.
Cimbalo et al. (1978).
- 29.
Genesis 19:24 and Revelation 19:20; Quran Chapter 26.
- 30.
Oswald (2012).
- 31.
Oswald (2012).
- 32.
Schroeder (2002).