Travelling bumpy roads: how consumers experience brand transgressions in the online environment

The emotional ties that consumers can form with brands can be subject to missteps and conflicts (e.g., Tolunay and Veloutsou, 2025; Tsarenko and Tojib, 2015). Such negative consumer–brand interactions violating the implicit or explicit expectations towards the brand relationship are referred to as brand transgressions (Aaker et al., 2004). Over the past decade, brands have increasingly operated in online environments, which fundamentally differ from offline environments (e.g., Kozlenkova et al., 2017; Swaminathan et al., 2020). As a result, the risk for new types of brand transgressions has risen significantly. Prominent cases of brand transgressions in online environments include the 2018 Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal and the 2024 controversy involving the Swedish influencer Matilda Djerf, who was accused of bullying and public humiliation by former employees of her fashion brand. At the same time, less publicly visible brand transgressions, such as malfunctions of a brand website, product delivery delays, and the occasional failure to personalise marketing communications, should not remain unconsidered. Even these comparably minor transgressions can have a profound impact on consumers’ brand relationships and emotions towards brands (e.g., Lin and Sung, 2014).

The research interest in brand transgressions – which substantially contribute to the development of negative brand relationships – has grown considerably in the past years as the domain of negative consumer–brand relationships has advanced (Fetscherin et al., 2021; Khamitov et al., 2020; Kucuk, 2019). Recent research has investigated several aspects related to brand transgressions such as brand hate (Hegner et al., 2017; Tolunay and Veloutsou, 2025), brand avoidance (Lee et al., 2009; Mazzoli et al., 2024), brand switching (Seth and Soch, 2024), brand retaliation (Zhang et al., 2020), or negative emotions towards brands (Haase et al., 2022; Youn, 2022). Research on brand transgressions in online environments has to date largely focused on isolated severe phenomena, such as brand crises or firestorms (e.g., Delgado-Ballester et al., 2021; Gerrath et al., 2023; Mosley et al., 2024).

So far, studies on brand transgressions in online environments tend to overlook micro brand transgressions, which involve minor inconveniences that can occur in everyday online interactions between consumers and brands and, thus, concern a variety of brands across industries. A micro transgression is characterised by a perceived low severity by consumers during its occurrence. As these transgressions tend to happen more frequently in the customer journey than highly severe ones, understanding how consumers experience and react to micro transgressions is crucial for uncovering weak spots along the customer journey. This study specifically focuses on the online context to uncover new types of brand transgressions and understand consumers immediate reactions (i.e., occurring on the same day), which has not been addressed before. In times of growing consumer participation and speed of information dissemination (Swaminathan et al., 2020), understanding what incidents consumers perceive as brand transgressions in online environments and how they react is crucial to brand managers since any negative brand-related content can result in anti-brand behaviour (e.g., boycotting) (Kennedy and Guzmán, 2021; Powell et al., 2021).

The integration of specific characteristics in online environments in negative brand relationship research is still considered “under-researched” (Veloutsou and Ruiz Mafe, 2020, p. 11). In response to calls for future research (Oh et al., 2020; Swaminathan et al., 2020; Veloutsou and Ruiz Mafe, 2020), this study explores everyday brand transgressions in the online environment with an emphasis on consumers’ immediate emotional and behavioural coping responses that can (in)directly impact brand-related outcomes. For this purpose, an exploratory research design involving semi-structured interviews was utilised. Respondents were asked to recall two negative brand incidents that they recently experienced in an online setting and report their detailed perspective, including the affective, cognitive, and behavioural aspects of the incidents. Against this background, this study aims to answer the following research questions:

This research provides several contributions to the field of negative brand relationships in online contexts. First, new insights on three relevant online brand transgression types are presented, resulting in the development of a definition for “online brand transgression.” This definition recognises the unique characteristics of the online environment, such as the global and rapid dissemination of information (Swaminathan et al., 2020). Second, the findings reveal that consumers’ emotional responses are closely linked to unique online brand transgression characteristics. Third, in the brand transgression context, Duhachek’s (2005) coping framework is applied for the first time to explore immediate cognitive and behavioural responses consumers engage in to cope with negative emotions in the aftermath of an online brand transgression. Finally, extant brand transgression research heavily relies on specific scenario-based incidents (e.g., Magnusson et al., 2014; Tsarenko and Tojib, 2015), whereas this study investigates real-life negative incidents that naturally occur in an online environment in consumers’ daily interactions and involves genuine consumer experiences rather than hypothetical scenarios.

Brand transgressions are a “violation of the implicit or explicit rules guiding relationship performance and evaluation” (Aaker et al., 2004, p. 2). Accordingly, brand transgressions refer to a wider range of negative incidents between consumers and brands that disconfirm relationship expectations, from product failures to companies’ violations of social codes with varying severity (e.g., speedbumps vs. ending the relationship) (Khamitov et al., 2020; Lin and Sung, 2014).

Previous research has differentiated between two main types of brand transgressions: performance-related (i.e., service or product failures) and value-related transgressions (i.e., social or moral violations via corporate wrongdoing) (e.g., Dutta and Pullig, 2011; Tsarenko and Tojib, 2015). Recent brand hate studies also refer to image-related brand transgressions, which describe the incongruency between a company’s image and consumer’s self-image (e.g., Davis and Dacin, 2022; Fetscherin and Sampedro, 2019; Hegner et al., 2017; Tolunay and Veloutsou, 2025). Further typologies such as the classification of moral transgressions (i.e., moral, ethical, and social transgressions) (Youn, 2022) or a typology based on the nature of brands (expressive, exclusive, expert, and empathetic) have been suggested (Sayin and Gürhan-Canlı, 2015).

Brand transgressions are of crucial importance for consumer–brand relationships since consumers make conclusions about their relationship partners particularly from negative interactions that occur (Aaker et al., 2004; Paulssen and Bagozzi, 2009).

Consumers frequently form connections with brands through a sequence of interactions with each other, even if they do not possess ownership of the brand (Fetscherin et al., 2021; Fournier, 1998). For many consumers, brands are active relationship partners that enrich the meaning of their lives and expand their self (Park et al., 2013), particularly when consumers perceive a brand as closely aligned with their self-concept. Depending on the prior relationship and whether a brand transgression event confirms or disconfirms established relationship norms (Harmeling et al., 2015), prior brand relationships can either buffer negative responses (“love-is-blind effect”; Lin and Sung, 2014) or lead to adverse consumer reactions (“love-becomes-hate effect”; e.g., Grégoire and Fisher, 2008; Tolunay and Veloutsou, 2025).

By evoking negative emotional and behavioural responses towards the brand, brand transgression events are key drivers for the development of negative brand relationships (e.g., Kucuk, 2019; Zarantonello et al., 2016). Most of the general branding research in the field of negative emotions has investigated brand hate (e.g., Hegner et al., 2017; Zarantonello et al., 2016). A range of negative emotions has been identified to be relevant in general brand contexts including anger, dislike, embarrassment, worry, sadness, discontent, disappointment, disgust, frustration, hate, and rage (Haase et al., 2022; Romani et al., 2012). When consumers experience negative emotions in their relationship with the brand, they generally respond with negative behaviours, ranging from engaging in anti-brand activism (Romani et al., 2015) to avoiding the brand (Hegner et al., 2017).

Although branding scholars have emphasised the crucial role that internet technology and hyperconnected environments play for consumer–brand interactions (Swaminathan et al., 2020; Veloutsou and Guzmán, 2017), the unique characteristics of the online environment have not been a primary focus in this line of research.

First, online environments are based on digital technology, characterised by nonphysical cues (e.g., Kozlenkova et al., 2017) and two-way interactions between consumers and brands enabled by emerging touchpoints (e.g., chatbots on websites, direct messenger on social media sites) (Steinhoff et al., 2019). Second, based on the interconnectivity, speed of information distribution, and high information volume in online environments, information about products and brands is always and immediately available to consumers (Swaminathan et al., 2020). Third, online interaction partners usually have limited knowledge and visibility of each other’s identity (i.e., anonymity) and can be located anywhere in the world (Kozlenkova et al., 2017). Fourth, companies have extensive opportunities to provide customised offerings by leveraging individual-level data collection methods (Oh et al., 2020). Fifth, the emergence of online platforms (e.g., social media, marketplaces, search engines) enables consumers to provide instant feedback about their experiences and share it publicly – more efficiently and effectively than ever – with others through digital word-of-mouth (WOM) (Kozinets et al., 2021). Finally, in computer-mediated environments, the anonymity and invisibility of interaction partners facilitate a more overt expression of negative emotions compared with positive emotions because there is less social appraisal from visible others (Derks et al., 2008). The absence of others can not only enhance more anger expressions, but also result in greater closeness and intimacy by providing a safer communication context compared with traditional face-to-face interactions (Derks et al., 2008).

These characteristics are accompanied by increasing consumer participation and empowerment, which become evident in the co-creation of brand experiences and the shaping of brand meaning (Swaminathan et al., 2020). Consequently, the values and expectations of today’s savvy consumers are constantly evolving, which can be a source of greater consumer disappointment in brand transgressions (Kucuk, 2019).

Since research on brand transgressions and negative consumer responses has largely been conducted in general contexts with no explicit differentiation between offline and online, this study aims to explore how the unique characteristics of the online environment influence the emergence of everyday brand transgressions and consumers’ related negative emotions and immediate cognitive and behavioural responses towards brands. To provide an overview on the existing research on brand transgressions in online contexts, Table 1 presents a summary of studies that empirically examined such incidents.

Prior research has investigated various forms of brand transgressions in online settings such as digital firestorms (Hansen et al., 2018), delivery delays (Wang and Zhang, 2018), negative online reviews about a service failure (Fox et al., 2018), or influencer betrayals (Reinikainen et al., 2021). The studies provide insights into general brand-related outcomes revolving around relationship quality (Aaker et al., 2004), brand perceptions (e.g., Hansen et al., 2018; Pecot et al., 2025; Shin et al., 2025), consumers’ emotions like anger (Fox et al., 2018; Mosley et al., 2024) and hate (Mazzoli et al., 2024; Shao et al., 2024), likelihood to punish the brand (e.g., Shao et al., 2024), and brand switching (Yadav et al., 2023). They also provide insights on online-specific brand-related outcomes such as the emotionality or sentiment of social media comments (Davvetas et al., 2024; Gerrath et al., 2023) as well as digital anti-brand behaviours such as negative electronic WOM (eWOM) and public complaining (Mazzoli et al., 2024; Youn, 2022).

The predominant research methods applied in studies on online brand transgressions are experimental designs employing scenario-based approaches (e.g., Kuchmaner et al., 2019; Jung et al., 2020; Reinikainen et al., 2021; Youn, 2022) and text mining methods examining social media content (e.g., Davvetas et al., 2024; Mazzoli et al., 2024; Mosley et al., 2024; Verma and Nayak, 2025). Apart from two recent contributions (Powell et al., 2021; Mazzoli et al., 2024), scant attention has been paid to the qualitative exploration of online brand transgressions. Qualitative research allows for an in-depth understanding of the context within which individuals actions and decisions take place (Myers, 2013). Existing research has focused on the exploration of antecedents that motivate consumers to transmit negative brand relevant information on social media (Powell et al., 2021) and investigated brand transgressions in social media advertising related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (Mazzoli et al., 2024).

The current study extends existing knowledge on online brand transgression by exploring how consumers experience micro brand transgressions online and by understanding consumers’ immediate responses that can (in)directly impact brand-related outcomes. Although a broad spectrum of outcome variables following online brand transgressions has been studied previously, consumers’ immediate coping responses have been considered less in this context. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, there is only one study (Hansen et al., 2018) that distinguishes between short-term (i.e., seven days after firestorm) and long-term (i.e., two years after firestorm) brand perceptions in the context of digital firestorms. In the present study, “immediate” refers to consumer responses occurring on the same day of the transgression. Against the background that interconnected environments (e.g., social media platforms) have given rise to new phenomena like digital firestorms, which can be initiated through different types of brand transgressions (Langaro et al., 2024), understanding consumers’ immediate responses is crucial to brand management.

To synthesise the literature findings outlined above and integrate theoretical links from psychology and consumer research, a conceptual framework was developed (Figure 1). The framework is based on psychology research that has investigated how negative events influence emotions (e.g., Moors et al., 2013; Roseman and Evdokas, 2004). An emotion can be defined as a:

Drawing on appraisal theory of emotion, negative emotions are elicited in response to events that do not align with an individual’s needs, values, beliefs, goals, or identities (Moors et al., 2013) (e.g., unmet brand relationship expectations). Thus, individuals can experience different emotions from the same event based on their unique cognitive appraisal processes (Roseman and Evdokas, 2004). These processes depend on contextual information, personal concerns, or past experiences, and play a key role in determining the emotional response (Moors et al., 2013). For instance, as consumers have become more aware about ethical issues and their abilities to enforce their rights and organise collective action, they may assess firms’ behaviours more critically.

The cognitive and behavioural processes initiated in response to negative emotions are called coping responses (Duhachek, 2005). Psychology theories suggest that different negative emotions in response to critical incidents lead to distinct coping strategies (Yi and Baumgartner, 2004). Previous research in general brand contexts has examined problem-focused, emotion-focused, destructive and constructive coping mechanisms (e.g., Nobi et al., 2021; Paulssen and Bagozzi, 2009; Seth and Soch, 2024). This study introduces another perspective by applying Duhachek’s (2005) framework to understand how consumers respond to online brand transgressions. Drawing on this framework, eight coping strategies are differentiated: action coping, rational thinking, emotional support seeking, instrumental support seeking, positive thinking, avoidance, emotional venting, and denial (Duhachek, 2005). While behavioural intentions, like complaining or WOM that directly impact brand-related outcomes, can fit into Duhachek’s (2005) framework, it also considers cognitive coping responses that indirectly impact brand-related outcomes. Thus, the utilisation of Duhachek’s (2005) framework broadens the understanding of consumers’ cognitive and behavioural processes after experiencing brand transgressions. Deriving insights on consumers’ internal processes is highly valuable for marketers as it enables a better understanding of consumers’ perceptions, motivations, and behaviours that can indirectly impact brand-related outcomes.

Based on these theoretical insights and the findings of the literature review, the proposed conceptual framework delineates the stages consumers undergo prior to and in response to brand transgressions in online environments. It illustrates how the unique characteristics of the online environment influence the emergence and responses to brand transgressions. In particular, these unique characteristics play an important role in consumers’ cognitive appraisal processes, which is closely related to consumers’ negative emotions. The framework demonstrates how related coping behaviours become visible when they occur in online spaces. Furthermore, it proposes that consumers’ appraisal processes are impacted by the prior relationship with the brand and other individual characteristics (e.g., personal goals, personality, technology proficiency). The framework acknowledges that behavioural responses may also unfold offline.

This study follows an exploratory approach and utilised the critical incident technique to gain a detailed understanding of the negative online brand incidents from the perspective of the participant (Antonetti et al., 2020; Paulssen and Bagozzi, 2009; Tronvoll, 2011). A series of 21 semi-structured interviews were conducted.

Participants were recruited using a purposeful sampling method to confirm that potential participants had experienced at least two negative incidents with brands within the past six months and represent digital natives, for whom the use of digital media comes naturally (Antonetti et al., 2020). The recruiting procedure was facilitated through social networks, and participants were eligible for an expense compensation of 15 euros (Zhang and Laroche, 2021). Interviews were conducted until a saturation point was reached to ensure comprehensive data collection (Myers, 2013). In total, 21 German adult online media users were recruited, including 16 women and 5 men from 24 to 27 years of age (mean age was 26 years). The interviews were conducted face-to-face in person or digitally during August and September 2022, spanning durations from 39 to 102 min, with an average duration of 65 min. The participants’ characteristics are displayed in Table 2. Prior to data collection, participants received detailed information about the study’s purpose and their rights (including the right to decline or withdraw at any time) and the steps taken to ensure confidentiality and anonymity. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Two pilot interviews were conducted to verify the interview guidelines prior to the main study. Following the procedure by Antonetti et al. (2020), respondents were asked to recall two independent negative brand incidents in an online environment that occurred in the last six months. The following information was captured for each critical incident: brand name, consumer’s history with the brand, overall negative critical incident story, elicited negative emotions, immediate responses to cope with the negative emotions, and impact on the brand relationship evaluation. Based on literature in consumer psychology, 17 negative emotion descriptors were used to capture the experienced negative emotions (see  Appendix). Respondents were asked to mark the term that best described the experienced emotion and to rate on a 3-point scale how strongly the emotion was experienced (a little, somewhat, strongly) (Scherer, 2005). They were encouraged to suggest additional emotion descriptors if required.

All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. To analyse, identify, and report patterns about consumers’ experiences of brand transgressions in online environments, a thematic analysis was employed (Braun and Clarke, 2006). An abductive coding procedure was followed (Saunders et al., 2023). Empirically emerging themes were identified and constantly compared with the coded incidents and categories within and across participants (Vaismoradi et al., 2013). During the coding process, the existing literature was considered to provide additional information and reinforce the emergent themes. Two coders, including one of the authors and an external coder, engaged in a collaborative coding process for a subset of the interview data. Based on the coders’ discussions to interpret and refine the coding scheme, the main author coded the remaining data by adhering to established principles for qualitative research (e.g., Locke et al., 2022; Saunders et al., 2023). After several iterations, the findings were gathered and conceptualised.

Three main themes of online brand transgressions and respective sub-themes are identified, and a definition of online brand transgression is proposed. These findings are concisely outlined in Table 3 and described in more detail below.

Performance-related online brand transgressions. Several negative brand incidents were associated with service or product failures based on digital consumer–brand interactions. Exemplary incidents include unreliable or lacking information about the shipping status of a product (logistics and delivery issues), personalisation failures (e.g., newsletters, advertisements), poor customer service interactions, poor website or mobile application usability, marketing communication overload, price changes for delayed deliveries, or technical malfunctions. The reported incidents took place through owned digital touchpoints such as online shops, direct communication media, or mobile applications. One respondent detailed her difficulties with the navigation in a fashion retailer’s online shop, expressing the clear expectation that when she is utilising filters to search for a specific clothing item, she should be able to easily find the product:

Another respondent described recurring technical issues when using a mobile application by a service provider, emphasising that these malfunctions were clearly not related to her own internet connection:

Value-related online brand transgression. Consumers experienced or observed brands’ violations of ethical or social norms across a range of online touchpoints, such as owned (e.g., direct messaging), paid (e.g., search engine advertisements), and earned (e.g., user-generated-content on social media networks). A new insight from this study is that the observation of other consumers’ discussions in comment sections play a critical role for the occurrence of online brand transgressions. One respondent expressed her concerns about a specific brand and the respective industry after seeing a user-generated video on TikTok. She observed the discussion in the comments section:

This incident highlights the important role of social media networks for the emergence and the distribution of online brand transgressions, as individual opinions or product reviews can quickly spread globally and remain permanently accessible online, possibly re-appearing for other consumers through the social media feeds.

Value-related online brand transgressions were also experienced when consumers had the impression of being manipulated in the form of faked online reviews:

Image-related online brand transgression. When describing the observation of other social media users as in brand communities or influencers that own a particular brand, respondents experienced negative emotions when they perceived an incongruency between other brand users’ values and their self-image. This classification is similar to previous definitions by Davis and Dacin (2022) and Fetscherin and Sampedro (2019) on image-based transgressions. The current study adds to this by highlighting the significance of the online context for image-related brand transgressions, as brands and consumers experience heightened visibility, and brand-related content can be rapidly disseminated and documented across digital platforms. It becomes evident that consumers frequently compare their own self-image with how the brand is portrayed by others across different touchpoints.

One respondent stated how his brand perception changed through the observation of an influencer wearing a certain brand:

These insights highlight the crucial role consumers play as observers, engaging with other brand users’ eWOM and monitoring the brands’ positioning across touchpoints. Hence, for image-related online brand transgressions, earned touchpoints, such as user-generated-content on social media blogs, in brand communities, and influencer content, play a substantial role.

Definition. While the general classifications of performance-, value-, and image-related brand transgressions from existing literature can be applied to the findings of this study, this study enhances these categories by offering a more nuanced definition specific to online settings. The interview insights demonstrate that online touchpoints introduce new types of brand transgressions that cannot take place in offline settings. These online interactions are distinct in that they can potentially occur daily, resulting in a higher frequency. The findings reveal that consumers, shaped by their digital literacy, have developed specific expectations of efficient, personalised marketing communications and customised offers. They are generally critical and alert, readily recognising deceptive marketing practices such as dark patterns like fake online reviews. Consumers expect a high degree of transparency and immediate feedback (e.g., regarding status updates). Much like in the offline world, consumers compare own experiences with those of others, whether through the observation of social media profiles or by reading other consumers’ comments. This heightened visibility of users and brands provides more opportunities for consumers to detect discrepancies between their self-image and the brand’s image. Electronic WOM serves as a powerful amplifier of brand transgressions, which shapes negative brand associations even among consumers that were not involved in the initial transgression experience.

Based on the interview findings and by building on previous research (Aaker et al., 2004; Sayin and Gürhan-Canlı, 2015), this study defines an online brand transgression as a brand’s violation of norms or expectations guiding the consumer–brand relationship evaluation, where the breach is enabled or reinforced by the unique characteristics of online environments.

The interviews revealed that consumers’ cognitive appraisals of brand transgressions constitute a complex combination of context-specific factors (e.g., excessive e-mail notifications, incomplete information on shipping), individual factors (e.g., price sensitivity, personal values), and brand relationship factors (e.g., prior negative experiences with the brand). Given this complexity, it is difficult to explicitly link a single appraisal to a specific negative emotion. However, this study uncovers that online context-specific cognitive appraisals are relevant triggers of consumers’ negative emotions in online brand transgressions.

Participants reported that at least two negative emotions occurred simultaneously during an online brand transgression event. To organise the reported negative emotions and the preceding appraisals, responsibility as one of the key cognitive appraisal dimensions was utilised (Kranzbühler et al., 2020). This dimension assesses what or who caused the incident that evoked the negative emotions, differentiating between other-attributed, situational-attributed, and self-attributed agency (e.g., Tronvoll, 2011). Although other appraisal dimensions, such as certainty or control, could be considered, previous research on service failures has shown that similarities and differences between negative emotions in critical incidents can be most effectively differentiated through the agency dimension (Tronvoll, 2011).

Table 4 shows the overall findings on consumers’ cognitive-emotional responses to online brand transgression. Participants’ context-specific cognitive appraisals are presented alongside the negative emotions they evoke. Exemplary quotes are provided to offer further insights into the specific appraisals of participants.

The findings indicate that consumers’ subjective cognitive appraisals of online brand transgressions are closely linked to negative emotions. By providing insights into which context-specific cognitive appraisals are related to specific negative emotions, this study complements findings by Haase et al. (2022) and Romani et al. (2012) on brand-relevant negative emotions by identifying additional negative emotions that are less researched but also relevant in online brand transgressions such as aggression, hostility, boredom, submissiveness, rejection, fear, guilt, vicarious shame, and regret.

The interviews revealed that consumers engage in multiple immediate cognitive and behavioural coping strategies in response to online brand transgressions. These coping responses manifest in different contexts, including online, offline, or independent of a specific setting. The findings are displayed in Table 5 and discussed below. The main themes are adapted from the coping strategies framework (Duhachek, 2005). Respective sub-themes emerged from the interview data.

Action coping. Action coping is a specific action to solve the source of the critical incident (Duhachek, 2005). The interviews revealed that action coping responses took place online, with constructive, detrimental, or neutral impact on the brand relationship. For instance, respondents engaged in seeking or verifying information following negative emotions of an online brand transgression:

These information-seeking coping responses are rather constructive for the brand relationship as they encourage consumers to interact and engage with the brand. This is described by one respondent who engaged in communication with the customer service:

Action coping behaviours with a detrimental brand relationship impact could also be identified. For instance, some respondents indicated that they switched to a different podcast due to an inauthentic integrated advertisement (digital product brand switching) when listening to a podcast:

Moreover, respondents unsubscribed from a brand’s newsletter services or unfollowed the brand on social media in response to an online brand transgression:

Rational thinking. As a cognitive coping strategy, rational thinking relates to the attempt of being rational and controlling of one’s feelings (Duhachek, 2005). Rational thinking responses were independent from the online or offline setting. One respondent described that she refocused on her initial shopping goal to deal with negative emotions:

Other respondents started to engage in self-reflecting processes after encountering user-generated social media content about the corporate wrongdoings of a fashion brand:

Emotional support seeking. Respondents shared their experiences and emotions with friends and family, either via direct messages on social media networks (online) or in traditional offline settings by complaining to them. These interactions included negative WOM, which is rather detrimental to the brand relationship:

Instrumental support seeking. This coping strategy is characterised by an individual’s aim to achieving objective change and getting advice from someone about what to do (Duhachek, 2005). One of the respondents expressed that she called a befriended lawyer to get advice on how to handle a delayed product order:

Positive thinking. This coping response is about mentally reconstructing the situation to be less damaging to the individual (Duhachek, 2005). The interviews revealed that consumers may engage into positive thinking to continue with their actions:

Avoidance. To avoid thinking about the negative incident, respondents distracted themselves by doing something else offline by putting aside their phone or laptop, or continued scrolling through their social media feed:

Emotional venting. To express their emotions, the findings revealed that respondents shook their head or let their feelings out by sighing, as expressed by one respondent:

Denial. One respondent reported that she mentally distanced herself from the source of negativity by continuing with the online purchasing process, which had a constructive impact on her relationship with the brand:

The findings suggest that the impact of immediate coping responses on the consumer–brand relationship varies across three levels. Some immediate action coping, emotional and instrumental support seeking, and rational thinking responses might be detrimental to the brand relationship. Other action coping responses, rational thinking, positive thinking, and denial responses can have a constructive impact on the relationship. Avoidance coping responses, emotional venting, and some action coping and rational thinking responses can be described as neutral, as they do not have an immediate impact on the brand relationship. This emphasises a broader perspective on the potential (even) positive outcomes of experiencing online brand transgressions.

The current research offers new insights into the dynamics of brand transgressions in online environments, thereby contributing to the growing research body on negative brand relationships. The findings reveal that the characteristics of the online environment significantly contribute to the emergence of new types of (micro) brand transgressions that cannot take place in offline settings and impact consumers’ related emotional and immediate coping responses.

This study identifies three types of brand transgressions relevant in the online environment, namely performance-related, value-related, and image-related brand transgressions (e.g., Dutta and Pullig, 2011; Fetscherin and Sampedro, 2019). Building on these existing classifications and by integrating the unique aspects of the online environment, a key contribution of this research is the development of a more nuanced definition for “online brand transgression” specific to online settings.

Moreover, this study emphasises the complexity of consumers’ cognitive appraisals for the elicitation of negative emotions in the aftermath of online brand transgressions. The findings demonstrate how a combination of context-specific, individual, and brand relationship-related factors impact the intensity and type of negative emotions that consumers experience. The findings reveal that consumers’ emotional responses are closely linked to unique online brand transgression characteristics. Therefore, this study complements previous research on negative emotions in brand contexts by uncovering negative brand interactions that can elicit negative emotions. Further, this study extends the findings by Haase et al. (2022) and Romani et al. (2012) by identifying additional negative emotions such as aggression, hostility, boredom, submissiveness, rejection, fear, guilt, vicarious shame, and regret that are relevant in online brand transgressions.

In the context of brand transgressions, this is the first study to apply Duhachek’s (2005) framework to investigate immediate consumers’ cognitive and behavioural responses to cope with negative emotions. Specifically, this research shows that coping responses can occur online, offline, or independent of the context. However, the findings demonstrate that, despite detrimental brand relationship outcomes, some coping responses (such as positive thinking, denial, reordering) can actually be constructive in that consumers remain open to resolving the issue and maintaining their relationship with the brand. Thereby, the findings add to the recently emerged literature on possible constructive outcomes of brand transgressions (Tan et al., 2024).

Overall, the current findings suggest that along the online touchpoints of the customer journey, consumers may experience negative brand interactions of different emotional intensity and cause. However, this study provides evidence that even minor online brand transgressions (e.g., a disorganised online shop) can be memorable incidents for consumers that can induce strong negative emotions.

Anticipating and managing brand transgressions in the online environment is of critical importance to brand managers. As brand relationships are shaped by a sequence of consumer–brand interactions (e.g., Aaker et al., 2004) that take place online and offline, enhancing the relational interactions at online touchpoints takes on a crucial role in shaping consumers’ brand relationship evaluations. Particularly in online environments, brand transgression can be enabled or amplified through the unique characteristics of the online environment.

To minimise the risk of consumers experiencing frequent micro brand transgressions online, marketers can implement preventative and restoration measures. To implement preventative measures, the customer journey can be optimised by analysing each online touchpoint from a consumer perspective. Drawing on the notion that brand relationships are shaped by the consumers’ emotions when interacting with the brand (Aaker et al., 2004), brand managers should strive to establish a reassuring online brand environment. This is especially relevant during the online purchasing and delivery process where face-to-face interactions are not possible and a lack of information and transparency can elicit negative emotions, such as fear and nervousness. Analysing consumers’ digital footprints might offer insights into whether an online brand transgression has occurred. By tracking consumers’ sentiment and engagement behaviours across digital platforms, brand managers could detect early signs of negative emotions or negative online brand engagement (Dong et al., 2024). This would be an approach that can help managers to react quickly to address concerns before they escalate.

Moreover, brand managers may develop restoration strategies by considering the type of online brand transgression, the attachment to the existing brand relationship, and individual consumer characteristics. Previous literature suggests that service failure can best be addressed through monetary compensation, reperformance, or product exchange (Roschk and Gelbrich, 2014). Simultaneously, value-related and image-related brand transgressions are harder to track as they can occur at various online touchpoints, namely earned, paid, or owned. Since these transgressions cannot be fixed in the same way as performance-related brand transgressions, preventative measures become essential.

As the likelihood for value-related online brand transgressions continues to increase (e.g., Youn, 2022), brand managers should heighten their awareness and responsibility of their actions across owned touchpoints. As consumers are increasingly informed, discerning, and empowered (e.g., Kozinets et al., 2021), they expect transparent communication and opportunities for co-creation and decision-making in their interactions with brands.

As to image-related online brand transgressions, brand managers have only limited control in restoring an evolving brand image. However, this paper’s findings suggest that influencers play a critical role in impacting the brand image. Thus, brand managers should establish a careful selection process of long-term influencer partnerships. Since influencers are highly valued by consumers for their authentic opinions and credibility (Leung et al., 2022), even their subtle endorsements or mentions of brands carry considerable weight.

Deriving generalisations from qualitative research poses an ongoing challenge and the utilisation of a convenience sample is acknowledged as a potential limitation in accurately reflecting the broader population (Myers, 2013). By narrowing the focus of this paper to the specific target group of digital natives as a homogeneous sample, this study aimed to address this limitation. Consequently, the findings of this study relate particularly to digital natives, a highly relevant consumer group in investigating the context of the digital age (Haase et al., 2022). Capturing the complexity of brand relationships is a challenging task due to their dynamic nature and the multitude of factors involved. Therefore, incident recall was chosen as it allowed to study real transgressions in ongoing consumer–brand relationships, providing high ecological validity (Paulssen and Bagozzi, 2009). Since respondents were asked to self-report actual negative brand incidents, data may suffer from recall bias. To mitigate this limitation, the respondents were asked to share a recent online brand transgression incident occurring in the last six months and the interviewer asked detailed, structured questions to help the respondents reconstruct their memories more accurately.

Future research is encouraged to employ longitudinal research designs to capture the long-term impact of minor online brand transgressions on the brand relationship evaluation more closely to their actual occurrence (e.g., six-month study with weekly tracking of minor transgressions and changes in brand attachment or brand attitude). Second, experimental research can be conducted by manipulating the nature of an online brand transgression (performance-related, value-related, image-related) and capturing brand- and consumer-relevant outcomes such as purchase intention, negative emotions, or well-being when they are with a brand. Building on the understanding that different consumers cope differently with the same stimulus (e.g., Fetscherin and Sampedro, 2019), this study acknowledges that individual consumer characteristics, such as digital literacy, play an important role and need to be considered by future studies. Third, there is much opportunity for the further development of theories on negative emotions in new brand contexts. Due to the ever-evolving nature of the online environment, it would be crucial to comprehend new sources of brand transgressions, such as virtual human-like assistants with the potential to evoke negative emotions like discomfort or eeriness among consumers (e.g., Steinhoff et al., 2019). Finally, future studies can explore recovery efforts from the consumer and brand perspective to better understand how these strategies impact the outcomes of online brand transgressions.

Anna-Marie Klütz: Writing — review & editing, Writing — original draft, Visualization, Validation, Project administration, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization; Carmen-Maria Albrecht: Writing — review & editing, Supervision, Conceptualization.