UNIVERSITY OF GHANA 

 

 

 

 

SERVICE BRAND AVOIDANCE IN BUSINESS-TO-BUSINESS 

RELATIONS: EVIDENCE FROM GHANA 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DOROTHEA SEKYIWA OTOO 

(10461422) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THIS THESIS IS SUBMITTED TO THE UNIVERSITY OF GHANA, 

LEGON IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR 

THE AWARD OF MPHIL MARKETING DEGREE 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JULY, 2020 



i 

 

DECLARATION 

 
I hereby declare that this work is the result of my own research and has not been presented by 

anyone for any academic award in this or any other university. All references used in this 

work have been duly acknowledged.  

I bear sole responsibility for any shortcomings.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………………….                                                   …………………….. 

 

DOROTHEA SEKYIWA OTOO                                                                DATE 

             (10461422) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

Dr. Raphael Odoom
Typewriter
03/03/2021



ii 

 

CERTIFICATION 
 
I hereby certify that this thesis was supervised in accordance with procedures laid down by 

the University of Ghana, Legon.  

 

 

 

……………………………………………..                                              …………………… 

DR. RAPHAEL ODOOM                                                                     DATE                                                               

(SUPERVISOR)                                                                                                                         

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

……………………………………………                                              …………………… 

DR. STEPHEN MAHAMA BRAIMAH                                                DATE                                                                   

(CO-SUPERVISOR)                                                                                                                         

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

Dr. Raphael Odoom
Typewriter
MARCH 3, 2021

Dr. Raphael Odoom
Typewriter
MARCH 3, 2021



iii 

 

DEDICATION 

 

This work is dedicated to my lovely mother, Mrs. Dorothea Halm Otoo in appreciation of her 

immense support and motivation throughout my time of work and study.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  



iv 

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 

 

 

I am profoundly grateful to God Almighty who has sustained me through this journey – may 

His name be forever praised.  

 

I also wish to appreciate my supervisors; Dr. Raphael Odoom and Dr. Stephen Mahama 

Braimah for their counsel and support. Additionally, I would like to thank Dr. Godfred M. Y. 

Owusu as well as the faculty of the Marketing and Entrepreneurship Department for the advice 

and critiques that helped shape my MPhil thesis. 

 

Finally, I acknowledge and appreciate the support of Mrs. Dorothea H. Otoo, Dr. K. Asamoa-

Bonsu, and my lovely family, friends and course mates who advised, prayed with and 

encouraged me. To you all, I say thank you. May the good Lord richly bless you. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



v 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

 

DECLARATION ............................................................................................................................................ I 

CERTIFICATION ........................................................................................................................................ II 

DEDICATION .............................................................................................................................................. III 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ............................................................................................................................ IV 

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................................................................... IX 

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................................... X 

CHAPTER 1 ...................................................................................................................................................1 

INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................................1 

1.1 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................................ 1 
1.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY ............................................................................................................... 7 
1.5 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY .......................................................................................................... 8 
1.5.1 CONTRIBUTION TO LITERATURE ............................................................................................................. 8 
1.5.2 CONTRIBUTION TO PRACTICE ................................................................................................................. 9 
1.7 CHAPTER SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................... 10 

CHAPTER 2 ................................................................................................................................................. 11 

CONTEXT OF THE STUDY ....................................................................................................................... 11 

2.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 11 
2.2 OVERVIEW OF THE SERVICES SECTOR ........................................................................................ 11 
2.3 THE GHANAIAN TELECOMMUNICATION INDUSTRY ............................................................... 13 
2.4 CHAPTER SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................... 15 

LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................................................ 16 

3.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 16 
3.2 THEORETICAL FRAME....................................................................................................................... 16 

3.2.1 Anti-consumption .............................................................................................................................. 16 
3.2.2 Attachment Theory and Brand Attachment ..................................................................................... 19 

3.3 THE BUSINESS-TO-BUSINESS (B2B) MARKET .............................................................................. 23 
3.3.1 Consumption in Business-to-Business Markets ............................................................................... 23 
3.3.2 Factors that influence Organizational Buying................................................................................. 25 

3.4 EMPIRICAL LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................ 27 
3.4.1 Brands and Branding in Business-to-Business Markets ................................................................. 27 
3.4.2 Brand Avoidance ............................................................................................................................... 31 

3.5 TYPE OF BUSINESS ............................................................................................................................... 47 
3.6 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND HYPOTHESES FORMULATION ....................................... 49 

3.6.1 Drivers of Brand Avoidance and Brand Avoidance ......................................................................... 49 
3.7 CHAPTER SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................... 54 

METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................................... 55 

4.1 CHAPTER OVERVIEW ......................................................................................................................... 55 
4.2 RESEARCH PARADIGM ...................................................................................................................... 55 

4.2.1 Positivism ........................................................................................................................................... 56 
4.2.2 Interpretivism .................................................................................................................................... 57 

4.3 RESEARCH DESIGN ............................................................................................................................. 59 
4.3.1 Research purpose .............................................................................................................................. 59 
4.3.2 Research logic ................................................................................................................................... 61 
4.3.3 Research process ............................................................................................................................... 63 

4.4 RESEARCH STRATEGY ....................................................................................................................... 64 



vi 

 

4.4.1 Survey ................................................................................................................................................ 65 
4.5 SAMPLING DESIGN .............................................................................................................................. 65 

4.5.1 Target population .............................................................................................................................. 66 
4.5.2 Sampling technique ........................................................................................................................... 66 
4.5.3 Sampling size ..................................................................................................................................... 67 

4.6 DATA SOURCE AND DATA COLLECTION ...................................................................................... 68 
4.6.1 Questionnaire design and administration ........................................................................................ 69 

4.7 PRETESTING OF QUESTIONNAIRE ................................................................................................. 71 
4.8 THE RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF THE SCALE .................................................................... 71 

4.8.1 Reliability ........................................................................................................................................... 71 
4.8.2 Validity ............................................................................................................................................... 72 

4.9 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................................................ 73 
4.10 DATA ANALYSIS TECHNIQUE ........................................................................................................ 74 
4.11 CHAPTER SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ 75 

CHAPTER 5 ................................................................................................................................................. 76 

DATA ANALYSES AND DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS ........................................................................... 76 

5.1 CHAPTER OVERVIEW ......................................................................................................................... 76 
5.2 DATA EDITING AND ENTRY .............................................................................................................. 76 
5.3 PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS ............................................................................................................. 77 
5.4 EXPLORATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS .............................................................................................. 78 
5.5 TEST OF NORMALITY ......................................................................................................................... 79 
5.6 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS ................................................................................................................ 81 
5.7 ASSESSING THE MEASUREMENT MODEL .................................................................................... 83 

5.7.1 Internal Consistency ......................................................................................................................... 83 
5.7.2 Indicator Reliability........................................................................................................................... 83 
5.7.3 Convergent Validity ........................................................................................................................... 84 
5.7.4 Discriminant Validity ........................................................................................................................ 85 

5.8 ASSESSING THE STRUCTURAL MODEL......................................................................................... 86 
(Source: Field Data, 2020) ......................................................................................................................... 89 
5.8.1 Analysis of Hypothesised Relationships ........................................................................................... 89 

5.9 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE (ANOVA) ................................................................................................. 91 
5.10 DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS ............................................................................................................... 92 

5.10.1 Objective One: Determine the factors that influence service brand avoidance in B2B relations. 92 
5.10.2 Objective Two: Assess dissimilarities in customer responses to service brands based on customer 

business type ............................................................................................................................................... 96 
5.11 POST-HOC ANALYSIS (TEST OF MEDIATION) ........................................................................... 97 
5.12 CHAPTER SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................... 101 

CHAPTER 6 ............................................................................................................................................... 102 

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS ............................................................................ 102 

6.1 CHAPTER OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................................... 102 
6.2 SUMMARY OF THE STUDY............................................................................................................... 102 
6.4 CONCLUSION....................................................................................................................................... 105 
6.5 MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................. 105 
6.6 IMPLICATIONS FOR THEORY AND FUTURE RESEARCH ....................................................... 107 
6.7 RESEARCH LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................... 108 
BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................................................ 110 
APPENDICES .............................................................................................................................................. 140 

 

 

 

 

 



vii 

 

LIST OF TABLES 
 

Table 3. 1: Types of Anti-consumers ....................................................................................... 19 

 

Table 4. 1: Research Paradigms ............................................................................................... 58 

 

Table 5. 1: Profile of Respondents ........................................................................................... 78 

Table 5. 2: Skewness and Kurtosis .......................................................................................... 80 

Table 5. 3: Descriptive on Constructs and Exploratory Factor Analysis ................................. 82 

Table 5. 4: Confirmatory Factor Analysis ............................................................................... 85 

Table 5. 5: Fornell-Larcker Criterion....................................................................................... 86 

Table 5. 6: Inner VIF Values ................................................................................................... 87 

Table 5. 7: Effect sizes ............................................................................................................. 88 

Table 5. 8: R-square and Adjusted R-square ........................................................................... 88 

Table 5. 9: Cross-Validated Redundancy ................................................................................ 89 

Table 5. 10: Standard Coefficients and Significance values for Hypotheses .......................... 91 

Table 5. 11:  ANOVA Output .................................................................................................. 91 

Table 5. 12: Model 2 (PLS Mediation output) ....................................................................... 100 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



viii 

 

LIST OF FIGURES 

 

Figure 3. 1: Four types of Brand Avoidance............................................................................ 43 

Figure 3. 2: Five types of Brand .............................................................................................. 46 

Figure 3. 3: Conceptual Framework ...................................................................................... 544 

Figure 4. 1: Theory and Evidence in Research Logic……………………………………….. 62 

Figure 5. 1: Model 1 (PLS Bootstrap Output)………………………………………………. 90 

Figure 5. 2: Model 2 (PLS Mediation)..................................................................................... 98 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 



ix 

 

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 

 

 

ANOVA    -- Analysis of Variance 

AVE -- Average Variance Extracted 

B2B -- Business-to-Business 

B2C -- Business-to-Customer 

CA -- Cronbach’s Alpha 

CBBE -- Customer-Based Brand Equity 

CB-SEM -- Co-variance Based Structural Equation Modelling 

CR -- Composite Reliability 

CV -- Convergent Validity 

DSL -- Digital Subscriber Line 

DV -- Discriminant Validity 

EFA -- Exploratory Factor Analysis 

GDP -- Gross Domestic Product 

IT -- Information Technology 

KMO -- Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin 

PLS -- Partial Least Squares 

SEM -- Structural Equation Modelling 

SPSS -- Statistical Package for Social Sciences 

SSA -- Sub-Saharan Africa 

URL -- Uniform Resource Locator 

VIF -- Variance Inflation Factor 

VSAT -- Very Small Aperture Terminal 

WTO -- World Trade Organization 

 



x 

 

ABSTRACT 

This study examines service brand avoidance within the business market. Specifically, it 

assesses the applicability of the drivers of brand avoidance within the business-to-consumer 

(B2C) market in business-to-business (B2B) relations and assesses dissimilarities in customer 

responses to service brands based on customer business type. Employing an explanatory 

research design and a quantitative research approach, data for the study was attained through 

self-administered questionnaires and a uniform resource locator (URL) through Google forms. 

The population of interest was businesses within the Accra metropolis of Ghana avoiding a 

telecommunication network brand. Respondents were selected using a purposive sampling 

technique. 346 out of the 398 questionnaires administered were used to analyse hypothesised 

relationships using partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS SEM) technique. 

The findings revealed that unmet expectations, symbolic incongruence and failed 

communications have direct significant influences on brand avoidance, while ideological 

incompatibility has a significant influence on symbolic incongruence. Additionally, 

unacceptable trade-offs and ideological incompatibility though not directly, influence brand 

avoidance when symbolic incongruence acts as a mediator. Further, the study revealed that 

customers’ business types account for some disparities in their responses to 

Telecommunication brands. This study contributes to literature new knowledge regarding 

brand avoidance within the business market from an emerging economy perspective. It 

provides empirical evidence as well as makes recommendations to brands and organisations 

on what to do and stay away from in order not only to ensure a purchase, but secure repeat 

purchases and loyalty. Future studies may consider examining brand avoidance by business 

clients within other industries as well as the impact it may have on co-branding agreements. 



1 

 
 

CHAPTER 1 

INTRODUCTION 

1.1 BACKGROUND 

In a service-driven world, businesses contend with a globally fierce competitive landscape 

(Skaalsvik, 2017). Johannessen and Olsen (2010) describe this landscape as progressively 

intricate, turbulent and ambiguous, rendering some recognisably effective recipes for 

competitive advantage and value creation within the industrialised world inutile for service 

providers. Accordingly, Skaalsvik (2017) propose service branding as a pathway to consistent 

economic growth and value creation at the organisational level. However, traditional 

paradigms in business markets typically regard branding as being of minimal significance to 

industrial and business-to-business (B2B) marketing (Malaval, 2001; Low & Mohr, 2001). 

Thus, despite the continuous growth of attentiveness to B2B branding, studies in this regard 

have not been as forthcoming as those that examine the activities and implications of brands in 

consumer markets (Brown, Zablah, Bellenger & Johnston, 2011; Seyedgorban, Matanda & 

LaPlaca, 2016). Despite that, evidence from empirical studies forward that brands are highly 

influential in organisational buying decisions as they enhance confidence in the decision-

making process and minimise perceived risk (Ohnemus, 2009; Zablah, Brown & Donthu, 

2010).  

 

Primarily, branding serves as a means of differentiation, focused on affecting consumers by 

creating positive, enticing and sellable concepts (Rindell, Strandvik & Wilen, 2014). Extant 

literature supports arguments that a company’s brand presents a multi-dimensional market-

based asset, which if harnessed and sustained offers a considerable advantage to the company 

in a competitive marketplace (Lee, Fernandez & Hyman, 2009; Belch & Belch, 2012). For 

services, branding presents companies a means of minimising perceived risks and building 



2 

 
 

trust. The gains of attaining positive consumer-brand reactions such as loyalty, brand affection, 

brand love among others are extensive and palpable, rendering the study and pursuit of them 

justified (Yim, Tse & Chan, 2008; Jaiswal & Niraj, 2011; Batra, Ahuvia & Bagozzi, 2012).  

 

However, negative brand relationships pose a threat of greater measure to companies 

(Krishnamurthy & Kucuk, 2009; Fournier & Alvarez, 2013). This threat is partly because the 

probability of a consumer sharing their displeasure, a negative experience or review is much 

higher than that of sharing an equally positive experience (Kavaliauskė & Simanavičiūtė, 

2015); a connotation of “negativity bias” (Kanouse & Hanson, 1972). The dreadful 

repercussions of this phenomenon are more pronounced for companies, given the power and 

ubiquity of social media and the internet (Grégoire, Tripp, & Legoux, 2009; Delzen, 2014). 

Also, having established that familiarising with the distastes of customers is as critical as 

knowing their likes, the significance of studying negative customer brand relationships is now 

more prominent and needful than ever (Lee, Conroy & Motion, 2009; Knittel, Beurer & 

Berndt, 2016). Likewise, it is noteworthy that investigating what spurs anti-consumption 

behaviour (such as brand avoidance) is important to all marketers regardless of whether it 

relates to a competing brand, as this knowledge could be utilised strategically for positioning 

their brand as a preferable alternative (Lee, Motion & Conroy, 2009). 

 

Numerous studies assert that anti-consumption behaviour, predominantly brand avoidance, is 

broad and thus is predicated by multifaceted motives (Lee et al., 2009; Safana, 2018). Brand 

avoidance denotes the conscious effort made by customers to keep away from a brand, 

especially when they possess the purchasing power (Lee et al., 2009b). Just as customers like 

to get closer to and spend more time with brands they like, they are prone to keep distant brands 

they dislike (Zarantonello, Romani, Grappi & Bagozzi, 2016). A careful review of literature 



3 

 
 

reveals unmet expectations, incongruence between a brand’s image and an individual’s 

identity, disparity between consumer’s ideological beliefs and brand values, consumer’s 

refusal to accept cost-to-benefit trade-offs offered by brand, and disapproval of brand 

advertisement (Lee at al., 2009; Riefler & Diamantopoulos, 2007; Kim, Lee & Mattila, 2014; 

Khan & Lee, 2014; Knittel et al., 2016) as factors that spur brand avoidance. Additionally, 

Zarantonello et al. (2016) and Hegner, Fetscherin and Van Delzen (2017) identify brand 

avoidance as a consequence of brand hate, presupposing that brand hate could induce brand 

avoidance. As explained by Chen and Bargh (1999), just as positive favourable stimuli induce 

approach behaviour, negative stimuli prompt avoidance behaviour.  

 

1.2 RESEARCH PROBLEM  

Traditional consumer research is shifting from a fixation on positive consumer-brand relations 

to negative relations (Grappi, Zarantonello & Romani, 2019). Prevailing branding literature 

mainly explores positive customer-brand relations including brand affection (Yim et al., 2008), 

brand love (Bergkvist & Bech-Larsen, 2010; Sarkar, 2014; Silden & Skeie, 2015), loyalty 

(Jaiswal & Niraj, 2011) and emotional attachment (Grisaffe & Nguyen, 2011), reiterating their 

importance and contributions to firms and brands. Nevertheless, negative brand associations 

are equally significant (Lee et al., 2009; Knittel et al., 2016). Prior studies propose that 

possessing knowledge of what customers find distasteful is as important as knowledge of what 

they like (Banister & Hogg, 2004), hence, the growing interest in the area. For instance, a call 

for papers on negative consumer-brand relations was made recently by the Journal of Product 

and Brand Management, which informed the publication of its Volume 28, Issue 5. Even so, 

interest in issues of anti-consumption is still emergent (Bryson, Atwal & Hultén, 2013), 

particularly brand avoidance (which is counted among the most prominent), accentuating the 

need to probe further (Knittel et al., 2016).  



4 

 
 

Moreover, existing studies in the domain of anti-consumption, particularly brand avoidance 

have focused on relations between brands and the end-user (Lee et al., 2009; Lee, Conroy & 

Motion, 2012; Kavaliauske & Simanavicinte, 2015; Zarantonello et al., 2016), neglecting B2B 

relations. This act of negligence exists even though other businesses remain a major consumer 

segment for most brands (Kotler & Pfoertsch, 2006). Consequently, there have been calls for 

investigation into issues of avoidance concerning B2B relations (Lee et al., 2009; Safana, 

2018). Organisations benefit greatly in B2B branding as branding efforts do not end with the 

buying business but transcend to all its stakeholders including its other suppliers, investors, 

partners, customers, employees, competitors among others (Queicb, 2003). Although this 

offers greater market and opportunities to brands, falling into the bad books of business clients 

could be damaging, as the business may not only avoid but discourage other related 

stakeholders (Kotler & Pfoertsch, 2006). This study therefore seeks to investigate the drivers 

of brand avoidance in B2B relations.  

  

Although there may be some similarities, organisational buying and decision-making vary from 

that of end-users in many ways. Unlike end-user buying, organisational buying involves input 

from more people; mainly professionals from different departments (Turka & Sasan, 2015). 

Also, organisations buy in larger quantities and place paramount importance on negotiation 

(Kotler & Pfoertsh, 2006; Kuhn, Alpert & Pope, 2008). Turka and Sasan (2015) argue that 

organizational decision making differs from that of individuals, in that it places more emphasis 

on rational factors (such as product/service quality, price, feasibility, running and maintenance 

cost among others) in comparison to emotional elements. However, Kotler and Pfoertsh (2006) 

opine that business decisions are still made by people who make both cognitive and affective 

considerations in decision-making. Also, the introduction of branding and relationship-

building in B2B markets introduces emotional elements as branding efforts and development 



5 

 
 

of brand equity thrive on the affective for optimal result (Lynch & De Chernatony, 2004). 

Moreover, the characteristics and preferences of the people who partake in the buying process 

informs organizational decisions to some extent (Turka & Sasan, 2015). For instance, each 

person in the buying centre has a unique preference for brands and products/services for one 

reason or another (Lysons & Farrington, 2006), and those of deciders, influencers and buyers 

in some organizations may be weightier in influencing brand choice. Thus, the drivers of brand 

avoidance that apply to individuals may reflect on the organizational level as well. 

Furthermore, due to larger order sizes, more attention to details, higher switching costs, 

investment of more resources and access to other stakeholders, the buyer-seller relationship is 

often of greater value to both parties in B2B relations than in B2C relations (Turka & Sasan, 

2015). Hence, the study of brand avoidance in B2B relations is off great importance, not only 

to academics but businesses alike.  

  

Extant branding literature is suffused with arguments that consumer brand preference or 

rejection is triggered by various intrinsic and extrinsic stimuli (Lee et al., 2009a; Odoom, 

Kosibi, Djamgba & Narh, 2019). For instance, Hegner et al. (2017) assert that development of 

negative consumer-brand relationships could flow from consumer, product or context-related 

factors. Also, scholars like Lim and O’Cass (2001) contend that consumers patronise specific 

products as purposive expressions of who they are and select brands to represent their lifestyles, 

personalities and other characteristics symbolically. In like manner, firm decisions and 

purchases can be considered a reflection of their characteristics. A plethora of studies including 

(Wagner, 1995; Orlitzky, 2001; Tsai & Wang, 2005; Kogan & Tian, 2012) spells out the 

centrality of firm characteristics in strategic and managerial activities and outcomes.  

 



6 

 
 

Many studies have investigated the roles and impacts of firm size, age, ownership structure and 

other idiosyncrasies on firm performance (Kipesha, 2013; Kisengo, 2014; Oyewobi, Windapo, 

Rotimi & Jimoh, 2016; Elshabasy, 2018), brand-building and brand management (Berthon, 

Ewing & Napoli, 2008; Spence & Essousi, 2010), export intensity (Bonaccorsi, 1992; 

Majocchi, Bacchiocchi & Mayrhofer, 2005) among others. However, studies to examine the 

roles specific features as business type play in influencing customer response to brand activities 

within B2B markets are scanty. Meanwhile, Turka and Sasan (2015) and Inoni, Salami and 

Olannye (2019) mention the importance of organisational attributes in influencing 

organisational purchasing behaviour. Until further research is conducted to examine the 

dynamics business type introduces to business responses and its impact on brand avoidance, 

marketing literature would remain somewhat porous. 

 

Also, owing to the relative novelty of brand avoidance as a research topic and the recent surge 

in interest, most of the studies in this area committed to its exploration and conceptualisation, 

thus employed the more suitable qualitative research approaches. As such, most of the studies 

in brand avoidance are qualitative (Bryson et al., 2013; Khan & Lee, 2014; Kim, Ratneshwar, 

Roesler & Chowdhurry, 2016; Knittel et al., 2016; Berndt, Petzer & Mostert, 2019) with just a 

few quantitative studies (Hegner et al., 2017; Safana, 2018; Odoom et al., 2019), creating a 

methodological gap which this study seeks to fill. Quantitative research, acting as a build-up 

on qualitative studies is more explanatory. It seeks to give more clarity to a research topic as 

well as understand cause and effect relationships (Yin, 2014), making it a relevant approach 

for studies in the ongoing development of brand avoidance literature.  

 

Furthermore, there have been calls for further studies in negative consumer-brand relations in 

emerging economies (Izberk-Bilgin, 2010; Bryson et al., 2013) as studies have focused 



7 

 
 

predominantly on developed regions, including Germany, UK, Sweden, New Zealand and 

Australia (Sandikci & Ekici, 2009; Lee et al., 2009; Bryson et al., 2013; Khan & Lee, 2014; 

Knittel et al., 2016). Per the assertions of Izberk-Bilgin (2010), perspectives from developed 

contexts differ from developing regions based on varying levels of modernisation and cultural 

development. This claim is also supported by Bochner (2013) who acknowledges the influence 

of varying cultural perceptions among consumers. In the bit to address this gap, this study 

examines brand avoidance from the perspective of an emerging market, specifically Ghana. 

 

A thorough review of literature gives an indication that most studies have thrown more light 

on negative relations in the overall consumption of general goods and service brands (Kozinets, 

2002; Banister & Hogg, 2004). Studies with more specificity considered the service industry 

in general (Safana, 2018; Berndt et al., 2019), creating the need for research into other specific 

industries as well as specific sectors within the industries (Roper et al., 2013; Knittel et al., 

2016; Safana, 2018). This study, therefore, seeks to investigate the drivers of brand avoidance 

in B2B relations. More specifically, it determines the applicability of the B2C brand avoidance 

drivers within the B2B terrain. It further examines the dynamics business types introduce in 

business responses to brands in the Ghanaian Telecommunications sector; a fiercely 

competitive industry. 

 

1.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY  

Hinged on the identified problems and gaps in both theory and practice, this study seeks to: 

1. Determine the applicability of the drivers of brand avoidance in the B2C market within 

the B2B terrain.  

2. Assess dissimilarities in customer responses to service brands based on customer 

business type. 



8 

 
 

1.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS 

 

This study is aimed at answering the following questions: 

1. What are the factors that influence brand avoidance in business-to-business relations?  

2. a. Are there dissimilarities in customer responses to service brands based on customer 

business type? 

   b. What are the dissimilarities in customer responses to service brands based on customer 

business type? 

 

1.5 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY 

 
The significance of this thesis is multifaceted, offering contributions to various categories of 

people, including academia, brand managers, brand consultants, and marketing agencies. These 

contributions are discussed under to broad headings as follows; 

 

1.5.1 Contribution to Literature 

 
First and foremost, this study contributes to existing literature, an emerging market perspective 

of service brand avoidance, thus filling the gap that currently exists, as most of researches in 

these areas have focused on developed contexts. Additionally, the findings of this study expand 

knowledge on brand avoidance within the B2B domain. This entails the factors that drive 

businesses to avoid brands when making purchase decisions, specifically regarding services 

provided by telecommunication network brands. The study considers established drivers of 

brand avoidance within the B2C context and how they may apply in business markets. This 

study also exposes the dissimilarities in client reactions to brands that are attributable to the 

business type of the client.  

  

 



9 

 
 

1.5.2 Contribution to Practice 

 
Currently, the Ghanaian Telecommunications Industry offers services that have become very 

critical and almost indispensable in the everyday activities of people and businesses alike. This 

creates grand opportunities for telecommunication network brands. However, it leaves little 

room for tolerance of mistakes, oversights and failures, especially amidst such great 

competition. This study thus serves as a reference document to all service brands, specifically 

within the telecommunication sector as well as brand consultants and agencies in identifying 

and strategizing against the factors that could make their business clients avoid their brands, 

thus staying competitive. 

 
 

1.6 CHAPTER DISPOSITION 
 
This thesis is comprised of six chapters. Chapter one is the introductory section of the study. It 

gives a background to brand avoidance as a concept and discusses the problems the study 

addresses. Additionally, the objectives and significance of the study are mentioned. Chapter 

two throws light on the context of the study. Chapter three also presents a review of existing 

literature on business-business markets, branding, brand avoidance and all related issues. In 

this section, theoretical and conceptual frameworks of the study are thoroughly discussed.  

 

Chapter four presents a thorough account of the study methodology. Specifically, it describes 

the research paradigm, design, strategy and sampling design as well as data collection, 

pretesting procedure and ethical considerations. Chapter five outlines and discusses the 

techniques applied in analysing data and the study findings. Chapter six then summarises the 

study, discusses the major findings, highlights the implications and limitations of the study and 

makes recommendations. 

 



10 

 
 

1.7 CHAPTER SUMMARY 

 
This chapter presented the background to this thesis, identified gaps in extant literature and 

highlighted the problems to be solved by the study. The objectives and significance of the study 

were then outlined. 

 

 

  



11 

 
 

CHAPTER 2 

CONTEXT OF THE STUDY 

2.1 INTRODUCTION 

This chapter builds the context of the study. It provides an overview of the services sector, and 

a synopsis of the Ghanaian telecommunications industry, throwing light to the various services 

provided and consumed within the industry. 

 

2.2 OVERVIEW OF THE SERVICES SECTOR 

Marketing literature is thronged with a plethora of definitions for services. In Edvardsson’s 

(1997) view, services form a part of the wider product concept. Lovelock (1991) on the other 

hand, views services as a performance or process instead of a thing. Grönroos (2001) defines 

a service as “an activity or series of activities of a more or less intangible nature that normally, 

but not necessarily take place in the interaction between the customer and service employees 

or systems of the service provider, which are provided as solutions to customer problems”. 

Diverse interpretations of this concept highlight that although services may feed into the 

development of physical goods, the final output of the service itself is not physical or tangible 

(Lovelock & Patterson, 2015). 

  

Universally, the service sector is seen as the driving force for many economies, spurring 

globalisation and technological development (Enu, Addey & Okonkwo, 2015). For instance, 

the services sector in developed countries such as Japan, USA and UK as well as developing 

countries such as India, Indonesia, Ghana and China have become a major source of state and 

national incomes, employment, FDI inflows and trade flows. In countries like Brazil, Germany, 

the US and France, over 65% of overall gross domestic product (GDP) is contributed by 

services. According to data from the World Trade Organization (WTO), this sector is the fastest 



12 

 
 

growing in the global economy, employs about a third of the workforce and provides 70% of 

accounts and global output for a quarter of overall global trade (ISSER, 2015). Africa is not 

left behind in this development, as Hassan and Abdullah (2015) point out. The authors mention 

that over half of the total GDP of developing economies is accounted to their respective 

services industries. For instance, between the years 2000 and 2015, 47% of total GDP sourced 

from services, 37% form industry and 16% from agriculture (Hassan & Abdullah, 2015). The 

authors further assert that recent spurs in Africa’s economic growth are heavily dependent on 

the services sector. 

  

The story is no different in Ghana. The Ghanaian service sector has gradually outrun the 

agriculture and industry sectors (known as the traditional economic sectors) and contributes 

over 50% of Ghana’s GDP (GSS, 2016), proving to be the trigger for the country’s 

development. In 2012, the service sector accounted for 49.3% of Ghana’s GDP, surpassing the 

year’s target of 7.7% by 1.1% to attain 8.8% growth (MoF, 2013). Furthermore, in 2016, the 

sector witnessed growth in GDP share of 54.3% from 53.3% in the previous year.  Conversely, 

the industrial and agricultural sectors decreased from 25.1% in 2015 to 24.3% in 2016 and 

20.3% in 2015 to 18.1% in 2016 respectively (MoF, 2017). The main sub-sectors in the 

Ghanaian service sector are; transport and storage; trade and repair of vehicles; hotels and 

restaurants; households and goods; information and communication; real estate; health and 

social work; business; social and personal; community; social security; public administration 

and defence; education and financial intermediation. Of the various sub-sectors, the 

information and communication sector stands out as a prime driver of the services sector 

(ISSER, 2016; NCA, 2017). Within this sector are the mobile network operators, network 

infrastructure operators, software operators, internet service providers, Very Small Aperture 



13 

 
 

Terminal (VSAT) data operators, internet backbone providers, telephone systems and 

dedicated transmission networks (TV, Cable, Digital Subscriber Line (DSL)). 

 

2.3 THE GHANAIAN TELECOMMUNICATION INDUSTRY 

The telecommunication industry forms part of the larger service industry, specifically the 

information and communication sector, and plays a critical role in the development of an 

economy (Boohene & Agyapong, 2011). According to Boohene and Agyapong (2011) and 

Ofori, Osei, Ato–Mensah and Affum (2015), telecommunications provide how all day-to-day 

transactions transpire, thus, facilitate activities such as decision-making, instructing, 

organising, information exchange, provision of feedback as well as the promotion of business 

and interpersonal relationships among others.  

  

In an organisation, calls within the firm (within and between departments) and out to suppliers, 

customers and other stakeholders, text messages and emails are reliant on the services of 

telecommunication networks. Also, voice and internet services for holding meetings over 

conference and video calls, accessing cloud storage services, as well as platforms for making 

and receiving payments, are powered by telecommunication networks. Furthermore, financial 

institutions such as investment and commercial banks and credit unions are heavily dependent 

on centralised systems for operation, which are accessed via the internet. Moreover, news 

media agencies, internet cafes, medical centres among others rely on telecommunication 

services to store, access, share data and provide optimal services to their customers. In the Sub-

Saharan African (SSA) telecommunication market, the Ghanaian Telecommunications 

Industry has been one of the prominent leaders for the past two decades (Nimako, 2012).  

  



14 

 
 

Following the Accelerated Development Programme, the Ghanaian industry was deregulated 

in 1994, opening the gates to foreign companies (Nimako, 2012). Before this, the industry was 

state-controlled and constituted of just a few firms to control the telephone (fixed-line and 

mobile) and internet services (Boohene & Agyapong, 2011). The era was marked by exorbitant 

pricing and highly restricted services which were mostly shoddy (Boohene & Agyapong, 

2011). Currently, the sector is recognised as a part of the largest and most efficient sectors in 

Ghana, characterised by fierce competition and innovation (Ofori et al., 2015). The players 

within the industry are MTN (Scancom Ghana Ltd.), the largest mobile network operator; 

Vodafone Ghana which took over Onetouch; Glo (Globacom Ltd.); and AirtelTigo, the product 

of a merger between Airtel Ghana and Tigo Ghana in November 2017 to become the second-

largest mobile network operator.  

  

Primarily, the market offerings of telecommunication networks constitute voice, data and SMS 

services. For instance, a customer may choose prepaid or post-paid service. Prepaid subscribers 

call, text and browse without paying monthly fees but recharge at their convenience, whereas 

post-paid subscribers are free to perform these activities without limits but pay monthly bills. 

Encapsulated in these are various bundle packages, for instance; unlimited call bundles, fuse 

bundles, Good Morning pack, Sunday bundles, free night call services among others. For 

business clients, there are specialised packages such as red business, which allows employees 

of a firm to talk to each other for free, browse and text; smart business, which allows firms to 

customise their data and voice plans; caller ring back tunes, aimed at assisting firms to 

advertise, improve their brand identity and better engage their customers while saving money. 

There is also global MPLS which allows businesses located in Ghana to seamlessly connect 

their offices to various locations across the globe, including South Africa, Nigeria, Tanzania, 

United Kingdom, Senegal, among others. Some other service packages for business clients are 



15 

 
 

ready office, VAS short codes, toll-free numbers, corporate WIFI, roaming bundles, bulk SMS 

solutions, enterprise fixed voice, multi-caller service and leased line services. Some businesses 

may, however, choose to patronise the regular individual or family packages for several reasons 

such as sheer preference, small business size and financial capabilities. 

  

Telecommunication providers also offer insurance, entertainment (music and movies) and 

mobile money services. The mobile money service was introduced into the Ghanaian market 

by MTN and has since grown in coverage and scope (Business Day, 2017). Currently, all 

telecommunication networks provide mobile money services. MTN mobile money popularly 

referred to as MTN Momo alone in 2017 signed on over 1.5 million active subscribers recorded 

an average of 18.5 million monthly transactions and employed about 19,500 merchants across 

the country (Business Day, 2017). Due to its handiness, security and convenience, most people 

and businesses have signed on, making it a major mode of payment for goods and services in 

both B2C and B2B markets (Ofori et al., 2015). 

 

 

2.4 CHAPTER SUMMARY 

 
The chapter discussed the context within which this study is examined. More precisely, an 

overview of the service sector and a discussion of the Ghanaian telecommunication sector were 

given.  

 

 

 

 

 



16 

 
 

CHAPTER 3 

LITERATURE REVIEW 

3.1 INTRODUCTION 

This chapter aims to review literature germane to brand avoidance thoroughly. First, the 

theoretical foundation of the study is determined, under this, anti-consumption and attachment 

theory are discussed to aid in the comprehension of brand avoidance as a concept. Second, 

some background is given to business markets, how businesses behave like customers and the 

factors that influence decisions. The study then provides an empirical review, where literature 

on branding, brand equity and brand avoidance. Also, this chapter discusses the various types 

of brand avoidance with their corresponding motivators as well as firm characteristics. 

 

3.2 THEORETICAL FRAME  

Anti-consumption being the broader construct from which the concept of brand avoidance 

emanates forms the basis of this study. Additionally, this study is informed by the attachment 

theory as it explains some consumer behaviours critical to this study. 

 

3.2.1 Anti-consumption 

Over decades of years, consumption and exchange have been the focus of attention for 

marketing practitioners and academics alike (Kotler, 1972; Bagozzi, 1978; Lee et al., 2009a). 

However, recent trends have revealed a growing interest in anti-consumption behaviour across 

the globe, exemplified by studies of Knittel et al. (2016), Hegner et al. (2017) and Odoom et 

al. (2019). In the world of business, the Nivea brand recently faced some avoidance and 

rejection issues after launching racist advertisement, and Liverpool dropped Addidas for Nike. 

Iyer and Muncy (2009) explain anti-consumption as a conscious or optional attempt by 

consumers to keep away from consumption and could take the form of minimising overall 



17 

 
 

consumption or avoiding specific brands or products. Zavestoski (2002) however describe it 

simply as a distaste of and resistance to consumption in general. Extant literature reveals 

multiple streams or perspectives of anti-consumption. They include boycotts (Farah & 

Newman, 2010; Albrecht, Campbell, Heinrich & Lammel, 2013), anti-loyalty (Krishnamurthy 

& Kucuk, 2009), ethical consumption (Carrigan & Attalla, 2001; Hoffmann & Hutter, 2012; 

Zollo, Yoon, Rialti & Ciappei, 2018), consumer resistance (Cherrier, 2009; Lee, Roux, 

Cherrier & Cova, 2011), brand avoidance (Lee at al., 2009b; Kim, Choo & Yoon, 2013; Knittel 

et al., 2016), brand rejection (Sandikci & Ekici, 2009; Nenycz-Thiel & Romaniuk, 2011), pre-

purchase brand avoidance (Khan & Lee, 2014), moral avoidance (Sudbury-Riley & 

Kohlbacher, 2018) as well as brand apathy and opposition (Kucuk, 2008; Fournier & Alvarez, 

2013; Wolter, Brach, Cronin & Bonn, 2016).  

 

Hogg (1998) in exploring the impact of negation on consumption highlighted the fundamental 

motivations that promote the two prime anti-consumption phases; non-choice and anti-choice 

behaviour. Non-choice behaviour is predicated on the inaccessibility, unaffordability or 

unavailability of a product or brand to a consumer for purchase, thus, the consumer has no say 

(Hogg, 1998; Hogg, Banister & Stephenson, 2009). However, with anti-choice behaviour, the 

decision lies with the consumer. He or she may find the product or brand distasteful and thus 

avoid or abandon it (Hogg, 1998). In this case, anti-consumption is not dependent on the 

expensiveness or availability of the product or brand, but the preference and perceptions of the 

consumer (Hogg & Banister, 2001).  

 

It is, however, important to note that, as stressed by Chatzidaki and Lee (2013), the reverse of 

the reasons for anti-consumption behaviour should not be automatically considered as drivers 



18 

 
 

of consumption. For this study, the focus shall be on anti-choice consumption, where the 

buying organisation has enough resources to make any service choice.  

 

3.2.1.1 Dimensions of Anti-Consumption 

Product or brand anti-consumption could come in diverse forms; some reject consumption for 

personal reason (e.g. living a simpler life) and those who do so for universal purposes (e.g. 

environmental preservation) (Cherrier, 2009). Iyer and Muncy (2009) point out the existence 

of four distinct groups of anti-consumers – dependent on the object and purpose of anti-

consumption, as seen in Table 3.1. They are anti-loyalists, global-impact consumers, market 

activists and simplifiers. Global impact consumers take a keen interest in diminishing general 

consumption levels for societal or planetary benefits. For instance, members of the buying 

centre in a refrigerant-using firm could boycott the purchase of chloro-fluoro carbons (CFCs) 

and hydro-chloro-fluoro carbons (HCFCs) refrigerants to help fight against ozone layer 

depletion and global warming. Simplifiers, the next set of anti-consumers, seek to avoid fast-

paced, excessive-materialistic lifestyles and opt for less-materialistic and simpler lives. In this 

case, the purpose of anti-consumption is personal, however, the object is universal (Shaw & 

Newholm, 2002; Iyer & Muncy, 2009). 

 

There are also the anti-loyalists; who reverse the concept of brand loyalty. Anti-loyalists refuse 

to patronise specific products or brands either because of a negative or unfavourable experience 

with the product or brand or low quality of the product (Iyer & Muncy, 2009). Here, the object 

of anti-consumption is specific, and the purpose is personal. Last but not least are the market 

activists. This group of anti-consumers avoid patronising certain products or brands due to their 

perception of the harmful effects it may have on the environment or promote negative social 

behaviour (Iyer & Muncy, 2009). The purpose of anti-consumption here is societal and the 



19 

 
 

object is specific. For instance, the decider or influencer in a firm’s buying centre could avoid 

or reject a certain brand or service because of the potential harm it may cause to the firm or its 

end-consumers. 

 

Table 3. 1: Types of Anti-consumers  

 

Object of 

Anti-

Consumption 

 Purpose of Anti-consumption 

Societal concerns Personal 

concerns 

General (All consumption) Global Impact 

Consumers 

Simplifiers 

Specific (Individual Brands 

or Products) 

Market Activists Anti-Loyal 

Consumers 

(Source: Iyer and Muncy, 2009) 

 

The focus of this thesis is anti-consumers who avoid specific brands for societal reasons i.e. 

market activists. This is because, in an organisation, although personal factors may come to 

play, the prime foci of purchasing decisions are the organisation and its end-consumers (Turka 

& Sasan, 2015). Per the assertions of Lee et al. (2009) and Kim et al. (2013), brand avoidance 

corresponds to brand-level rejection, which is a subset of the larger anti-consumption 

phenomenon.  

 

3.2.2 Attachment Theory and Brand Attachment 

Attachment theory attempts to bring understanding to the nature of the affective bonds made 

by people (Smith, Murphy & Coats, 1999). This theory emanated from a study of how baby 

animals imprint on their mothers and the effect of severing their bonds and progressed to 

emotional bonds formed by human infants and adolescents (Lorenz, 1935; Suomi, Harlow & 

Domek, 1970; Ainsworth, Blehar, Water & Wall, 1978). As propounded by Bowlby (1969, 

1980), humans form emotional attachments; which are resolute emotional connections between 



20 

 
 

an individual and an entity that persists across space and time. He asserts that these attachments 

feed into the basic requirements for human survival and are attributable to the period of the 

dependence of an infant to its mother to an adolescent's need for affection and relationships.  

 

Per the assertions of this theory, an individual’s relations with an entity bothers on the degree 

of emotional connectedness the individual has to the entity (Bowlby, 1982). Impliedly, a person 

who is extremely affectionate towards another is predisposed to be devoted to, protect, work 

more closely with and sacrifice a lot for that person, on the other hand, in the event of 

disappointment from the receiving entity, the individual in question will be hurt and displeased 

(Bowlby, 1982). Extensive research has shown that emotional attachments go beyond just 

caretakers, partners and other humans to collectables, places of residence, brands, gifts and 

other objects of interest and fondness (Wallendorf & Arnould, 1988; Hill & Stamey, 1990; 

Mick & DeMoss, 1990; Schouten & McAlexander, 1995; Slater, 2001). 

 

Park, McInnis and Priester (2006) explain brand attachment as the robustness of the cognitive 

and emotional bond between a consumer and a brand. This explanation reveals the existence 

of a bond between the consumer and brand, and an emotional and cognitive correlation. The 

nature of this correlation informs the portion of resources the consumer apportions to the brand 

(Park et al., 2006). The consumer-brand connection portrays the degree to which the brand 

links to the consumer and influences the functional, symbolic and experiential goals of the 

consumer (Thomson, MacInnis & Whan Park, 2005). Just like babies form attachments to their 

caregivers (based on the caregiver’s reaction to the baby’s needs), consumers form attachments 

to brands based on the extent to which the brand can satisfy their needs (Bowlby, 1982; 

Thomson et al., 2005). Although in comparison to adults, the needs of babies are less 

complicated, the underlying process of attachment is similar.  



21 

 
 

The associations between brands and consumers manifest in both the cognition and emotions 

of consumers (Sperling & Berman, 1994); thus, whenever the thoughts of the brand come to 

mind substantial reasoning schemes are induced and bonds some parts of the consumer to the 

brand (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2005). Moreover, embedded in brand attachments are strong 

feelings of self-relevance and self-implications which bind the consumer to the brand 

(Mikulincer & Shaver, 2005). This goes to say that brand attachment goes beyond just attitudes 

to more complex consumer behaviours related to commitment to a relationship (Park et al., 

2006). The establishment of relationships, according to Hazan and Shaver (1994), is complex 

and dependent on the consumer's attachment style. 

 

3.2.2.1 Attachment Styles and Consumption 

Attachment styles may be described as the systematised patterns of a person’s behaviours, 

feelings, memories of past occurrences and anticipations (Bowlby, 1982; Mikulincer & Shaver, 

2005). Ainsworth (1979) derived three attachment styles from an experiment on infants, 

namely; secure, avoidant and anxious-ambivalent or resistant. Bartholomew and Horowitz 

(1991) building on this developed a 2x2 matrix of adult attachments, with the axes being low 

or high dependence and low or high avoidance. From this matrix, they identified four 

attachment styles, namely, secure, preoccupied, dismissing and fearful attachment. Mende and 

Bolton (2011) however make the case that attachment styles are not limited to only person-to-

person relations but influence relations between companies as well, hence, the attachment style 

of consumers portrays the kind of relationship they have with firms.  

 

Mende and Bolton (2011) identify two distinct dimensions of consumer attachment styles, 

namely; attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance. According to Thomson, Whelan & 

Johnson (2012), attachment anxiety focuses on an individual's self-view; considering the 



22 

 
 

degree to which an individual perceives him or herself as deserving of love or not. They add 

that, anxious people are constantly concerned about their self-worth and self-esteem and tend 

to transfer undue attention to the object of their attachment. As a way of dealing with their 

excessive sensitivity to relationship threats, anxious persons require constant assurance and 

crave interdependence. In contrast, attachment avoidance relates to how an individual 

perceives others (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003). People who are high on avoidance tend to be 

highly self-reliant and prefer independence (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003). Prior studies reveal 

that the patterns of consumers' devotion, satisfaction, involvement and commitment to brands 

and service providers are influenced by their styles of attachment (Thomson & Johnson, 2006). 

Additionally, Swaminathan, Stilley and Ahluwalia (2009) maintain that attachment styles 

inform brand choice based on the consideration of brand personality types.  

 

Consumer attachment is not limited to B2C relations only but comes into play in B2B relations 

as well; this is because, the internal working models of people inform their behaviours in 

business relationships as well (Paulssen, 2009). Paulssen (2009) in the investigation of the 

application of attachment theory in B2B markets identified two attachment styles that come 

into play; secure business attachment and close business attachment. Generally, employees 

who exhibit secure business attachment view others as being well-intentioned, reliable and 

responsible. They also have a high propensity to keep positive expectations, make positive 

appraisals and construct positive explanations to cover the behaviours and traits of business 

partners (or suppliers or brands). Thus, an organisation with a predominantly secure buying 

centre will be predisposed to greater levels of trust, satisfaction and repurchase intention in 

business transactions. However, it is worth noting that securely attached customers in B2B 

relations can possess a high willingness and ability to depend on a brand or business partner 

without an obligation or desire to be personally close to the brand or business partner (Paulssen, 



23 

 
 

2009). On the other hand, people who exhibit close business attachment prefer to have personal 

relationships with business partners (Paulssen, 2009). For instance, a brand or service provider 

would have to develop relationship marketing tactics aimed to personal bonding (showing 

interest in the personal lives of staff), so, if the brand’s representatives are friendship-averse, 

the chance of perpetuating a good relationship will be little.  

 

3.3 THE BUSINESS-TO-BUSINESS (B2B) MARKET 

Rope (1998) asserts that B2B marketing is premised on the buyer in the business transaction 

being either a company or another organisation. B2B marketing clientele may be classified into 

three broad categories, namely, commercial organisations, public organisations and non-profit 

organisations (Rope, 1998). Public organisations comprise of government and municipalities 

agencies and community–based service institutions such as schools and clinics, whereas non-

profit organisations include unions, religions, institutions, fellowships (Rope, 1998; Webster& 

Wind, 1972; Turka & Sasan, 2015). Commercial organisations include service enterprises, 

industrial enterprise as well as whole and retail businesses (Rope, 1998). The commercial 

organisations, unlike the aforementioned, make purchases to facilitate their business processes, 

produce other products or resell at a profit (Turka & Sasan, 2015). As emphasised by Rope 

(1998), the prime qualification for a B2B transaction is not necessary for the specific use of the 

product or service but the fact that the purchase is made on organisational demand rather than 

for individual use. 

 

3.3.1 Consumption in Business-to-Business Markets 

Prior studies reveal that B2B interactions differ from B2C interactions on various fronts, 

including market structure, buying behaviour, products, buyer-seller relationships, promotions, 

price and channels (Giglierano & Vitale, 2002; Holvitie, 2006). B2B markets generally consist 



24 

 
 

of fewer customers or buyers who purchase in larger proportions (Giglierano & Vitale, 2002). 

The revenue distribution of most businesses that serve other businesses follows the Pareto 

Principle, which avers that 80 per cent of revenue is generated by only 20 per cent of customers 

(Hague, Hague & Harrison, 2017). Products could range from simple to technically complex 

depending on the line of business of the customer and are usually customised to the preference 

of the buyer (Giglierano & Vitale, 2002). Additionally, the demand for business clients is 

determined by their final consumers, thus may fluctuate more frequently (Kotler & Armstrong, 

2012). Negotiation plays a key role in B2B transactions, as well as careful consideration of 

factors such as price, product or service availability, quality, running and maintenance cost, 

delivery and feasibility (Webster & Wind, 1972; Giglierano & Vitale, 2002; Turka & Sasan, 

2015).  

 

Furthermore, B2B transactions are characterised by shorter promotional and distribution 

channels, which could be attributed to the emphasis on personal selling and the use of little to 

no market intermediaries (Giglierano & Vitale, 2002). Additionally, in B2B markets, buyer-

seller relationships are greatly valued by both buyers and sellers; this may be due to the large 

investments made by both parties and high switching costs (Turka & Sasan, 2015). 

Relationships have a long-term orientation and involve the exchange of significant information 

between members (staff) of the participating organisations (Giglierano & Vitale, 2002). 

Purchasing tasks normally include multilevel functional involvement (Turka & Sasan, 2015).  

In smaller organisations, purchases may be conducted by a manager or the owner of the 

business. As expressed by Anton and Jones (2017), the actions of SMEs are mostly a direct 

representation of the psychological and behavioural characteristics of the business owner(s). 

However, in large organisations, purchases made result from the consolidated effort of largely 

professionally trained personnel who make up the buying centre (Rope, 1998; Lyson & 



25 

 
 

Farrington, 2006). The buying centre is described as the various people within an organisation 

who directly or indirectly participate in the buying process (Rope, 1998; Lyson & Farrington, 

2006). According to Rope (1998), Lyson and Farrington (2006) and Turka and Sasan (2015), 

the buying centre comprises of: 

• Initiators – those who establish the need for the product 

• Influencers – those who specify the requirement to be met by the product or provide 

information that assists with the evaluation of alternatives 

• Deciders – those who wield the formal or informal authority to make the final purchase 

• Buyers – those who have the authority to choose the vendors and make the actual 

purchase 

• Users – those who directly use the purchased product in their operational duties and  

• Gatekeepers – those who have access to other members of the buying centre and have 

some control over information flow. 

 

3.3.2 Factors that influence Organizational Buying  

Organisational buying like many other activities in the corporate environment is affected by 

various controllable and uncontrollable factors. Prior studies show that organisational buying 

is influenced by organisational, environmental as well as group/interpersonal and 

individual/personal factors (Hutt, 1998; Thomas & Grashof, 1982; Glock & Hochrein, 2011). 

According to Lyson and Farrington (2006), environmental influencers include political factors, 

technological change, interest rate, competition, national economy, level of demand and 

government regulations. Besides, they posit that these factors fall out of the control of the 

organisation; thus, firms only adjust to accommodate and survive. The organisational factors, 

on the other hand, stem from within the institution and may be altered by the firm (Lyson & 

Farrington, 2006; Turka & Sasan, 2015). These factors feed into the firm’s ideology, strategic 



26 

 
 

priorities, strategic trends of purchasing and strategic role of purchasing (Hutt, 1998). They 

include the organisation’s policies, goals, objectives, procedures, structure and system of 

rewards (Lyson & Farrington, 2006; Turka & Sasan, 2015). For instance, whether an 

organisation has a centralised or decentralised structure informs the degree of complexity of 

the purchasing process, whilst, the policies and goals form the basis for drawing up contracts 

and relationship – building (Turka & Sasan, 2015).  

 

Interpersonal attributes, as defined by Turka and Sasan (2015) encapsulates the relations 

between the various members of the buying units during the decision-making process. The 

factors that come to play here include members’ awareness, education, ability to take risks, 

mutual trust, the degree of conflict between members as well as the differing levels of authority, 

empathy, status and persuasiveness (Lyson & Farrington, 2006; Turka & Sasan, 2015). Also, 

Martilla (1971) found that interpersonal communication within the firm is rudimentary and 

crucial, whereas its significance between firms is dependent on the nature of the product and 

geographic market factors. Conversely, individual factors relate to the characteristics of the 

people who partake in the buying process and how they affect decisions (Turka & Sasan, 2015). 

For instance, each person in the buying centre has a unique preference for brands and 

products/services (Lyson & Farrington, 2006). Also, the dynamics introduced by multiple 

personalities, ages, attitude towards risk and professional identification creates different levels 

of information processing, product/service evaluation criteria and risk-reduction strategies 

which all feed into purchases (Hutt, 1998; Lyson & Farrington, 2006). Moreover, people move 

in certain directions in decision-making to attain some personal objectives such as recognition, 

power, prestige, promotion and job security; normally categorised as non-task objectives 

(Turka & Sasan, 2015). 



27 

 
 

3.4 EMPIRICAL LITERATURE REVIEW 

3.4.1 Brands and Branding in Business-to-Business Markets 

De Chernatony and McDonald (2003) describe a brand as an aggregate of functional and 

emotional benefits that present a unique and desirable promise, whilst Farquhar (1989) defines 

branding simply as the process of making a product more valuable. Per the assertions of Kotler 

and Pfoertsh (2006), the general roles brands play in consumer markets can be translated to the 

B2B markets. However, Leek and Christodoulides (2011) point out that many marketers have 

viewed branding myopically in business markets. Branding was regarded as of little value to 

the business clients because of the traditional perception of organisational decision-making as 

very rational, whereas branding appeals more to the emotions (Robinson, Faris & Wind, 1967). 

Conversely, later studies, such as that of Lynch and De Chernatony (2004) reveal that just like 

in B2C markets, brands in B2B markets must build both affective and cognitive ties with 

customers to foster trust. 

 

It is evident in extant literature that branding is beneficial to both the brand\firm investing in 

branding and the customer (Leek & Christodoulides, 2011). For instance, branding enhances 

the perceived value of a product/service, and consequently, makes it more appealing (Cretu & 

Brodie, 2007; Rindell et al., 2014). A brand, according to Michell, King and Reast (2001), 

gives identity and a consistent image to a product/service, and in turn, confers uniqueness unto 

that product. In situations where firms bid for contracts, those with strong brands are favoured 

as they get unto the bid lists and can request premium prices (Michell et al., 2001; Low & 

Blois, 2002; Ohnemus, 2009). Furthermore, promotional efforts of branded products are 

accepted more readily, and the firms behind the brands enjoy the transfer of positive brand 

evaluations from one product category to the other in the event of brand extensions (Michell et 



28 

 
 

al., 2001; Low & Blois, 2002; Ohnemus, 2009). Plus, strong B2B brands stand a higher chance 

of receiving referrals (Holt, Quelch & Taylor, 2003; Bendixen, Bukasa & Abratt, 2004). 

 

On the side of the business client, brands reduce perceived risks and intricacies involved in 

purchase decisions, as brands act as guarantors of product origin, quality and performance 

(Belch & Belch, 2012). According to Low and Blois (2002) and Mudambi (2002), brands boost 

the confidence of business clients, increase satisfaction and promote comfort as well as the 

“feel good” factor. Moreover, the buying firms may attain some legitimacy from being 

connected to a reputable company or brand (Low and Blois, 2002). 

 

3.4.1.1 Service Branding 

Services have a fundamental characteristic of intangibility, which makes service quality 

evaluations difficult (Parasuraman, Zeithaml & Berry, 1985). Berry (2000), however, points 

out that branding presents consumers a means of substantially differentiating between offerings 

of competing brands. Murray and Schlacter (1990) assert that in comparison to the branding of 

goods, service branding is more pertinent because of the intricacy of service purchases. This is 

especially true for B2B services (Geigenmuller & Bettis-Outland, 2012).  

 

Contrary to product branding, services rely on the image and designation of the firm that 

provides then when being branded. Consequently, the entire firm is perceived as the service 

provider by consumers (Berry, 2000). Thus, as stated by Alexandris, Douka, Papadopoulos and 

Kaltsatou (2008), the core of a service brand is dictated by the characteristics of the firm. For 

instance, how employees of the firm offer services and the nature of the relationship between 

the firm and its clients. Furthermore, business services, according to Parasuraman (1998), are 

frequently highly individualistic and require intensive correspondence between the consumer 



29 

 
 

and provider. Thus, information asymmetry between the client and provider could make 

effectively evaluating strategies for the provider; and service quality for the client difficult 

(Karantinou & Hogg, 2001; Hausman, 2003).  

 

As Marquardt, Golicic and Davis (2011) point out, in B2B transactions goods and services 

provided across firms in the industry are more susceptible to speedy standardisation, resulting 

in commoditisation. Webster and Keller (2004) thus stress the need for brand managers to focus 

on consistently creating and promoting points of difference, including the reputation strength 

and technical competence of a firm as a way of differentiation and providing superior value 

(Webster & Keller, 2004). Services notably possess high credence and experience qualities, 

consequently associate more with high risk and uncertainty. However, when services are 

branded, the uncertainty decreases as the brands act as proxies for quality (De Chernatony & 

Dall’Olmo Riley, 1999; Grace & O’Cass, 2005). Moreover, service brands assure customers 

of consistency in service delivery, whereas brand equity is very instrumental in B2B service 

differentiation (Gordon, Calantone, di Benedetto & Kaminski, 1993; Berry, 2000). 

 

3.4.1.2 Brand Equity   

Brand equity has been interpreted severally in literature. From a financial viewpoint, brand 

equity is regarded as the disparity in cash flow a firm sees when they add a brand name to their 

service or product against when they do not (Simom & Sullivan, 1993). Also, brand equity is 

described as the financial worth generated by a brand, as evidenced by the profit generated by 

the brand (Biel, 1992; Bailey & Ball, 2006). Kimpakorn and Trocquer (2010) point out, 

however, that, the financial approach to defining the concept fails to assist brand managers to 

fully grasp the various processes that feed into the development of brand equity. Aaker (1991) 

from a marketing viewpoint defines brand equity as an amalgamation of assets and liabilities 



30 

 
 

associated to a brand which results in the increment or reduction of value attained by a firm 

and its clients from a market offering. Additionally, these assets are broken down into five 

categories: perceived quality, brand association, brand awareness, brand loyalty, as well as 

other proprietary assets (Aaker, 1996). Tsiotsou, Ratten, Rosenbaum & Wong (2010) also add 

that the extra value added to a product or service to attain brand equity comes from acquiring 

some brand attributes such as a name, reputation, association and symbols. Furthermore, Keller 

(1993), who takes it from a consumer-based view, considers brand equity as a resulting reaction 

brand knowledge generates to marketing efforts. According to Hoeffler and Keller (2003), 

positive brand equity is attained when in the event of brand recognition, the customer responds 

more favourably in comparison to how he/she would respond in the absence of brand 

recognition. 

 

In conceptualising Customer-Based Brand Equity (CBBE), Keller (1993) notes that by 

comprehending brand equity from where the consumer stands, a firm understands some 

consumer reactions to marketing efforts and can consequently improve their marketing 

programs. Berry (2000) posits that brand equity places brands/firms in a favourable position. 

Various studies point out that brand equity provides significant merits in marketing, such as 

forming a concrete and distinct bond between a firm and its shareholders and engenders long-

terms patronage (Capron & Hulland, 1999; Davis, 2000; Ambler, 2003). Moreover, Yoo, 

Donthu and Lee (2000) assert that an appreciation of and investment into brand equity increases 

profitability and makes market accessibility and penetration difficult to other firms. 

 

Contrary to the concept of positive brand equity is negative brand equity. According to Lee 

(2007), there are some instances where a brand may be negatively re-created in the process of 

marketing or consumption, which may result in its avoidance or rejection. This rejection, as 



31 

 
 

argued by Lee (2007) leads to a market-based liability which is the reverse of the improved 

efficiency and effectiveness a firm attains as a market-based asset. Drawing from the 

conceptualisations of Keller (1993) and Aaker (1996), the repeated rejection of brand results 

in negative brand equity as the reaction from consumers to the brand is unfavourable. Thus, 

rather than enhancing the value creation assets of the firm, the brand may stifle cash flow and 

impede the overall possibility of value generation of the firm (Lee, 2007). 

 

3.4.2 Brand Avoidance 

Brand avoidance is described as an antithesis of brand loyalty, implying that whereas 

satisfaction results in loyalty, dissatisfaction breeds avoidance (Thompson, Rindfleisch & 

Arsel, 2006). According to Kavaliauske and Simanavicinte (2015), the first attempt at formally 

defining brand avoidance was made by Lee at al. (2009a). They define brand avoidance as a 

deliberate choice by consumers to reject or keep away from a brand. This phenomenon 

represents a form of consumer behaviour which involves the pre-meditated rejection of a brand 

despite the consumer having access to it, and the resources and ability to purchase it (Lee et 

al., 2009b; Rindell et al., 2014). Thus, being a dimension of the parent anti-consumption 

concept, brand avoidance is identified as an anti-choice behaviour (Hogg, 1998; Lee et al., 

2009a). Knittel et al. (2016) highlight the necessity of brands and firms understanding the 

origins and motivations of brand avoidance as they bear the brunt. Backed by Kavaliauske and 

Simanavicinte (2015), they argue that brand avoidance has a significant impact on the brand or 

firm's reputation and profitability. 

 

The study of brand avoidance has mainly concerned end-consumers or individual consumers. 

These studies have identified that no matter the promises brands offer or not, customers avoid 

brands when the negative emotions, beliefs and attitudes they have towards the brand 



32 

 
 

strengthens or grows and serves as a barrier to purchasing (Thompson et al., 2006; Nenycz-

Thiel & Romaniuk, 2011; Romani, Grappi & Dalli, 2012). Although business clients are prime 

contributors to the success of brands in the B2B market (Turka & Sasan, 2015), and avoid 

certain brands at points in time, little attention has been given to brand avoidance by business 

clients. Arguments in areas of organisational purchasing behaviour have stressed on rationality 

over emotionality (Robinson et al., 1967; Turka & Sasan, 2015) however, the introduction of 

branding and relationship-building in B2B markets introduces emotional elements as branding 

efforts and development of brand equity thrive on the affective for the optimal result 

(Mudambi, 2002; De Chernatony & McDonald, 2003; Lynch & De Chernatony, 2004).  

 

Also, every organisation comprises of individuals who make both cognitive and affective 

considerations in decision-making, despite the ratios (Kotler & Pfoertsh, 2006). Besides, in 

situations where affective measures are disregarded, brands may be rejected or avoided by 

business clients for other reasons, making their investigation critical. Due to the scanty 

literature in brand avoidance in the B2B context, discussions on the motivations and types of 

brand avoidance will be heavily reliant on studies from the consumers. 

 

3.4.2.1 Types of Brand Avoidance 

3.4.2.1.1 Experiential Avoidance 

Potentially the most perceptible type of brand avoidance, experiential avoidance relates to 

situations where the result of service delivery or product performance falls short of fulfilling 

the brand promise or meeting customer expectations, sourced from poor performance, 

unpleasant store environment or consumption hassles (Lee et al., 2009a, 2009b). Halstead 

(1989) posits that in market exchange, consumer expectations could be either confirmed or 

disconfirmed, hinged on the juxtaposition of the product or service performance with their 



33 

 
 

initial expectations. When there is a match between expectations and product or service 

execution, there is confirmation (satisfaction). There is, however, disconfirmation when 

performance falls either below or above expectations. In the occurrence of the latter, the 

customer is delighted when performance falls above expectation and dissatisfied when the 

reverse transpires, in which case brand avoidance may be triggered (Oliver, 1980; Lee et al., 

2009b). 

 

Kim et al. (2013), supported by Lee et al. (2012) argue that unmet expectations are effective in 

eliciting brand avoidance behaviour. This argument is reiterated by Nenycz-Thiel and 

Romaniuk (2011), who state that negative brand experiences spur anti-consumption behaviour. 

Thus, the occurrence of experiential avoidance of a brand reveals that a customer has been 

disappointed by a brand’s service – experienced a service that fell short of their expectations 

because of poor performance, inconvenience, service environment or service encounter failures 

(Lee et al., 2009b; Berndt et al., 2019). Similar to B2C relations, core service failures such as 

unmet expectations will logically spur brand switching in B2B markets, (Naumann, Haverila, 

Khan & Williams, 2010). Poor performance, consumption hassles and unpleasant store 

appearance are the outstanding dimensions of unmet expectations, resulting in experiential 

avoidance (Lee et al., 2009a). 

 

Poor performance 

As reported by Lee et al. (2009a), service experiences that fail to meet customer expectations 

account for most occurrences of experiential avoidance. In such situations, where the customer 

perceives the brand’s inability to execute its promises or fails to affirm its image, poor 

performance is evident (Odoom et al., 2019). De Chernatony and McDonald (2003) in their 

conceptualisation of a brand, highlight the significance of functional benefits offered. Delasus 



34 

 
 

and Descotes (2012) in like manner, place gravitas on the performance of a product or service 

when they link it to its functional value. Particularly in industrial markets, functional value 

performs a pivotal role (Doyle, 2001). Within the service industry, poor service covers all 

actions and events associated with the service brand that may result in disappointing service 

experiences (Berndt et al., 2019). Poorly functioning products or services result in the waste of 

time, distress, feeling of loss of control and dissatisfaction (Thompson, 1997; Cho & Song, 

2012). Furthermore, business clients may encounter major setbacks and frustrations in 

attending to their external and internal customers (Kapustina & Babenkova, 2010), which could 

result in the displeasure and defection of their customers. 

 

Hassle 

The term hassle captures the additional effort and stress of consumers encounter when handling 

product or service failures and complaints when dissatisfied; leading to avoidance of the brand 

or service (Lee at al., 2009; Knittel at al., 2016). In a situation where a customer is presented 

with a defective product or encounters a poor service and needs to act to remedy the 

underperformance, reaching out to customer service is often considered unworthy of the effort. 

After consideration of the inconvenience suffered, avoidance of the service or product may 

seem a plausible alternative in the future (Lee et al., 2009a). 

 

 Similarly, the findings of Keaveney (1995) reveal that customers are more likely to switch 

brands when they are inconvenienced and encounter poor employee response to service 

failures, resulting in avoidance of the failed brand. In the B2B setting, the effect of service 

failures heighten, because the failures are not limited to the client’s operations, but due to 

“domino effects”, spreads to the client’s customers (Zhu & Zolkiewski, 2015). Even in the 

instance where service recovery schemes such as product returns or service warranties are 



35 

 
 

available and invocable, the consumer could still regard them as complicated and additionally 

inconveniencing, strengthening the feeling of dissatisfaction (Lee at al., 2009a, 2009b). 

 

Store environment 

Lee et al. (2009a, 2009b) point out that an unpleasant store environment or service delivery 

setting could add up to a negative brand experience. The store environment delineates the non-

interpersonal and interpersonal components of the shopping experience, such as ambience, 

stimuli and social factors (D’Astous, 2000; Arnold, Reynolds, Ponder & Lueg, 2005). It may 

also be described as the tangible settings of a firm inclusive of lighting, signs, music and people 

(staff uniforms, behaviours and characteristics (Turley & Milliman, 2000; Lin & Chiang, 

2010). Per the assertions of Kotler (1973) and Donovan, Rossiter, Marcoolyn and Nesdale 

(1994), these factors within a service environment or store setting could create positive feelings 

in the consumer and increase the chances of purchase or vice versa.  

 

A store or service environment of a brand is considered strategic; aimed at influencing 

consumer cognition and behaviour, while adding to the delivery of distinctive experiences 

(Turley & Milliman, 2000; Lemoine, 2005). Nevertheless, Lee et al. (2009b) hint that 

customers generally have expectations of the kind of experiences a brand’s store or office 

should present. Thus, when reality deviates from the expectations, the negative store 

experience could spur avoidance (Lee et al., 2009b). Findings of Noad and Rogers (2008) 

reveal that just like in B2C settings, store atmospherics plays a significant role in affecting 

purchase decisions in B2B transactions, with product display being the major influencer. 

Similar to how as an appealing environment favours positive consumer reaction, an 

unappealing environment created displeasure, dissatisfaction and avoidance (Tai & Fung, 

1997; Knittel et al., 2016). 



36 

 
 

3.4.2.1.2 Identity Avoidance 

It is normal to find consumers choose certain brands because they perceive a correspondence 

between the brand and their self-concept or self-image (Belk, 1988). Conversely, still driven 

by a desire to enhance their self-concept, some brands may be rejected by consumers (Hogg & 

Banister, 2001). Similar to individuals, organisations strive to protect their identities. 

Organisational identity, as defined by Albert and Whetten (1985), is a set of statements 

concerning the organisation which are considered as distinct, central and enduring by the 

members of the organisation. This identity gives the organisation a sense of who they are, what 

they do and what they should strive to attain in future (Lin, 2004). Albeit, with a solid 

comprehension of an organisation’s identity, managers and other firm leaders develop a 

fundamental base that guides all decision-making activities (Albert & Whetten, 1985). 

 

Identity avoidance refers to brand avoidance that stems from a consumer's perception of the 

discordance between the symbolic meanings of a brand and their actual or preferred self-

concept (Lee et al., 2009a). Simply put, identity avoidance happens when a brand is unable to 

attain a customer’s self-concept requirements (Lee et al., 2009b). In such instances, the 

consumer may perceive the brand as unauthentic, affiliated with an unacceptable reference 

group (Charmley, Garry & Ballantine, 2013; Kim et al., 2016), and other attachments and 

values they do not want to associate with (also known as the consumer’s undesired self) 

(Ogilvie, 1987; Lee, 2007). According to Lee et al. (2009b), the concept of identity avoidance 

is informed by undesired self-concept and disidentification.  

 

Also known as self-identity, self-concept describes the desire of a customer to establish a 

psychological attachment with a corporate brand (Hudson, Roth, Jadden & Hudson, 2015). 

Disidentification theory postulates that in constructing their self-concept, consumers may 



37 

 
 

dissociate themselves from groups and organisations with values and standards that are 

inconsistent with theirs (Bhattacharya & Elsbach, 2002). Thus, the inconsistencies and 

symbolic connotations a brand presents, as well as the self-concept of a consumer could stir up 

antagonistic feelings towards the brand (Hegner et al., 2017). Just like brands and consumers, 

business clients have organisational concepts they uphold and with which they operate (Hunt, 

Wood & Chonko, 1989; Beyer, 1981; Dose, 1997) and are likely to reject a brand that does not 

identify with these values. Lee et al. (2009a) highlight inauthenticity, negative reference groups 

and deindividuation as the sub-themes of identity avoidance. 

 

Inauthenticity 

Lee et al. (2009a) make the argument that a brand's lack of authenticity is a reason why it will 

be avoided. Authenticity, as elucidated by Arthur (2006), connotes trustworthiness, 

genuineness and realness. On that account, a consumer that avoids a brand based on 

inauthenticity regards the brand as a counterfeit (Lee et al., 2009). Thompson et al. (2006) 

mention that obtaining and maintaining associations of brand authenticity is challenging for 

brands. Holt (2002) and Beverland (2006) share in this view and link the difficulty to the 

brand's growth in popularity and over-commercialisation. Thus, a brand can be perceived to 

have lost its authenticity or unique symbolism (or termed ordinary) as it loses its ability to keep 

hardcore clientele and convey the positive associations it initially represented (Lee et al., 

2009a). Lee (2007) further iterates that embedded in brand inauthenticity is the disparity 

between the image of a brand as perceived by a consumer and intended image of the brand.  

 

Negative reference groups  

A consumer is likely to reject a brand because of its association with a negative reference group 

(Lee et al., 2009a). As postulated in the social identity theory, the uniqueness of a person is 



38 

 
 

reliant on the associations he/she makes as well as the significance of these associations to the 

person (Hogg, 1998). Additionally, various studies suggest that consumers develop and define 

their social reference and self-concept by what they do or do not consume (Hogg, 1998; 

Banister & Hogg, 2001). Moreover, consumers hold the view that as they consume brands, 

they display self-concepts akin to those of other consumers of the same brands (Grubb & Hupp, 

1968). Thus, in respect of self-congruity, consumers relate self-concepts to the image of the 

product or brand-user (Sirgy, 1982). Consequently, firms invest a lot into connecting their 

brands to preferred reference groups in hopes that their targets will lean towards their brands 

(Lee, 2007). Knittel et al. (2016), therefore, assert that the basis for evading a product or brand 

is evident in consumers’ eagerness to be dissociated from a specific group. 

 

Deindividuation  

Deindividuation may be described as an emotional state of diminished self-assessment and 

diminished regard for judgment, resulting in disinhibited and anti-normative behaviour 

(Zimbardo, 1969; Diener, 1980). Lee et al. (2009a) contend that deindividuation results from 

brand consumption due to a loss of individuality. Knittel et al. (2016) add that it is also seen 

when consumers reject popular brands to avoid losing their uniqueness and individuality. 

Hence, instead of promoting significance by using the brand (Banister & Hogg, 2000), the 

consumer’s individuality is rather eroded or concealed. The brand loses its ability to build 

distinctive individuality as more and more people patronise the brand (Lee, 2007). 

 

3.4.2.1.3 Moral Avoidance 

This typology of avoidance is driven by ideological incompatibility and is often the outcome 

of brand promises that socially or politically oppose the belief system of customers (Lee et al., 

2009; Sandikci & Ekici, 2009). This absence of like-mindedness in moral values between the 



39 

 
 

brand and the customer may prompt the customer to avoid the brand (Lee et al., 2009a); for 

instance, portraying some behaviours considered as immoral per the standards of consumers 

(e.g. forced labour, discrimination, unfair trade prices, cruelty, non-transparency, 

monopolistic), engaging in unethical practices as well as socially irresponsible behaviours 

(Kozinets & Handelman, 2004; Rindell et al., 2014). Lee et al. (2009) and Knittel et al. (2016) 

label country effects, anti-hegemony and consumer cynicism as the ideological sub-themes that 

underlie moral avoidance. 

 

Country of origin 

Country of origin is of importance to the customer (Abrashi & Beurer, 2013). According to 

Gurhan-Canli and Maheswaran (2010), it is a critical determinant of the behaviours, attitudes 

and purchase intentions of consumers. As stated by Peterson and Jolibert (1995), country of 

origin is considered as a prompt based on which consumers assess the consistency and 

superiority of products from a country and progressively influences consumption intents. 

Although the country of origin signals are properties that are not substantially associated with 

the product itself, interacting with the other conditions surrounding the purchase, it may serve 

as an assessment criterion for consumers (Elliott & Cameron, 1994; Kaynak, Kucukemiroglu 

& Hyder, 2000). Underpinning the concept of country of origin is the idea that once a consumer 

becomes aware of the source of a product or brand, it affects their behaviour towards the 

product/brand (Lee, 2007). Furthermore, as expressed by Aiello et al. (2009), it influences 

consumer evaluation of a product or brand. 

 

Existing literature discloses animosity and financial patriotism as some sub-themes of the 

country of origin (Lee, 2007; Lee et al., 2009). Per the postulates of the animosity model, 

consumers may baulk a product or brand from a country, not because of the product or brand 



40 

 
 

quality but for reasons relating to military, economic and political activities regarded as serious 

and reprehensible (Klein, Ettenson & Moris, 1998). Financial patriotism, on the other hand, 

relates to instances where consumers keep away from brands, they believe could have 

destructive implications on the resident economy (Lee, 2007). 

 

Anti-hegemony 

The idea that a multi-cultural group is dominated or controlled by just one group is termed as 

hegemony; thus, anti-hegemony may be depicted as "against domination" (Lee, 2007). Gramsci 

(1971) submits that anti-hegemony involves consumers contesting multi-national brands that 

are perceived to wield too much authority in the marketplace, otherwise known as hegemonic 

brands. As maintained by Kozinets and Handelman (2004) and Rindell et al. (2014), consumers 

are driven to maintain a strategic distance from dominant brands in anticipation of monopoly 

prevention or to combat corporate irresponsibility whiles protecting the society and 

environment. Here, customers are not motivated to lessen overall consumption but reject 

brands because of their conduct in the marketplace (Cromie & Ewing, 2009). Moreover, 

consumers may also be driven by the lop-sidedness of power between a multi-national brand 

and the consumer (Lee et al., 2009a; Odoom et al., 2019). In these cases, consumers are drawn 

to brand avoidance because of their feelings of disempowerment from lack of freedom of 

choice (Cromie & Ewing, 2009), and a desire to lessen the power wielded by the organisation 

(Berndt et al., 2019). 

 

3.4.2.1.4 Deficit-Value Avoidance 

According to Lee et al. (2009a, 2009b), deficit-value avoidance comes about when consumers 

perceive a brand as parading unacceptable cost-to-benefit trade-offs. This brand avoidance 

typology is built on concepts of quality and value (Parasuraman & Grewal, 2000; Lee et al., 



41 

 
 

2009b). Research has shown that the benefits consumers attain from brands are two-fold: 

functional and symbolic (Ligas, 2000; Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001). Lee (2007) links this 

dimension of brand avoidance to the inability of brands to fully satisfy the functional desires 

of consumers, per the brand promises, thus, offering poor value.