میزان مصرف فلک زده: اکتشاف معانی و انگیزه
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|20100||2009||9 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||محاسبه نشده|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Journal of Business Research, Volume 62, Issue 2, February 2009, Pages 191–199
Marketers frequently position business concerns – whether brands, teams, or stores – as the non market-dominant entity (or the “underdog”). This article examines the motives for underdog support through in-depth interviews and a focus group. Findings suggest that underdog consumers support underdogs out of empathy, as a way to ensure the maintenance of equal opportunity in competition, and as a way to provide personal inspiration. Some motives for underdog support can be interpreted to be anti-consumption (or, at least, anti-corporate) in nature. On the other hand, many underdog consumers support and identify with underdogs not necessarily as a way to keep the top dog down, but as a means to keep the little guy competing. Rather than solely “vote-against” behavior, “vote-for” behavior is very evident as well.
Many sports fans and non-sports fans alike frequently root for and/or support the underdog. Several of Hollywood's most popular movies have told inspiring underdog stories; for example Rudy, Rocky, Sea Biscuit, and Million Dollar Baby. Many popular sports teams have been successful as underdogs, including the loveable losers, the Chicago Cubs. The fascination Americans have with underdogs extends to famous personalities including Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan, Oprah Winfrey, and Bill Clinton. These individuals represent people who have overcome underdog status to become successful. Marketers such as Avis with “We try harder” and Volkswagen with self-deprecating headlines (e.g., “Ugly is only skin deep”) have used underdog-type appeals in establishing effective positioning strategies, the latter example using what Holt (2004) describes as irony and reflexive acknowledgement. Consumers may identify with “underdog” brands as a possible show of anti-consumptive behavior for a variety of reasons. Holt's (2002) brand counterconformists avoid the influence of popular brands in pursuit of individual sovereignty. Kozinets' (2002) Burning Man participants attempt to temporarily leave the market to gain sovereignty, while Kozinets' (2001) “Trekkies” seek legitimization for their marginalized practices. O'Guinn (1991) shows how marginalized fan club members are motivated to support their chosen celebrity in hopes of touching greatness. Holt (2002) indicates that popular brands, even from those companies that have been extremely loyal to the marketing concept, are realizing anti-brand sentiment from consumers in the postmodern era. Thompson and Arsel's (2004) “glocalization” and Ger and Belk's (1996) “creolization” deal with this process in a more dynamic fashion. Thompson and Arsel note that glocalization is “a needed corrective to the calamitous view of global capitalism as a culture-crushing juggernaut” (p. 631). Both glocalization and creolization note the attraction of global brands, especially when they first become available in areas which formerly did not have them. Over time, consumers may choose to re-purchase their former favorite brands or return to their formerly preferred local retailers. Both glocalization and creolization note that this occurrence is often a blending process, rather than just an either/or decision. Glocalization, at least as discussed in the findings of Thompson and Arsel's study of consumers of Starbucks' local competitors in Madison Wisconsin, has a strong “anti-corporate” element, as their café flâneurs noted that they would be embarrassed to be seen in a Starbucks. Ger and Belk's creolization is more an acknowledgment of strong attraction to the old familiar entity. To use a political metaphor, glocalization would involve more the voting against the market-dominant entity, whereas creolization involves more the voting for the less well-known entity. This study of the underdog will try to tease out both elements involving anti-top dog attitudes and those involving a more pro-active favoring of the underdog. The studies discussed previously [e.g., Holt (2002)] cover underdog consumption, but appear to fall somewhat short in explaining why some people continuously support underdog brands, people, stores, and other objects across domains when concerns such as quality, variety, price, and even one's “face” may be compromised. In this study, the authors explore the motives and meanings of underdog consumption and how underdog consumers negotiate their self-identities even when confronted with alternatives of higher quality, wider variety, and/or cheaper prices.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
The phenomenon of “anti-consumption” (or the more moderate “anti-corporate”) does not necessarily mean lessened consumption or even negative reactions to global brands and/or huge big-box retail. Some consumers simply prefer the underdog to their much larger competitors. In many cases, they pay extra for this preference, especially in the context of local retailers who cannot match the supply efficiencies of retailers such as Wal-Mart. On the other hand, the Thompson and Arsel (2004) study investigated local coffee house customers likely to pay less than had they gone to Starbucks, where no such option as the “bottomless cup” offered by local competitors exists. Market embeddedness does exist in some retail environments, and the resulting social norms exacerbate the positive preferences for local retailers at the same time that they stimulate negative perspectives of large chain retailers. Understanding underdog support should provide guidance to the “Davids” of the world in terms of competing successfully against the “Goliaths.” Fostering “anti” sentiments toward larger competitors may have some short-run benefits, but these findings indicate that the lack of obvious effort on the part of underdogs may change their images to those of “losers.” Pro-active efforts by underdogs are critical components which enable their supporters to identify positively with entities not likely to be proclaimed as “winners” by the masses. Additionally, visible effort will also help consumers maintain their beliefs that supporting underdogs helps to maintain equal opportunities for smaller entities while holding the top dogs at bay. Thus, the “Davids” of the world cannot survive and prosper merely by riding an “anti-corporate” wave. Future research should delve more broadly into local environments and uncover those activities and components that differentiate most effectively underdogs from losers. Study is needed to determine just how much of underdog preference is due to resentment toward “corporate” entities, and how much is due to strong attractions to the underdog itself. To the extent that the latter is more important than the former, pro-active positioning of the underdog may be far more effective than any anti-corporate style of positioning, even if done in a subtle fashion.