Due to the dynamic nature of the online environment, new sources of brand transgressions are emerging. This study aims to explore how consumers experience everyday brand transgressions in online environments by gathering qualitative insights into consumers’ immediate emotional and coping responses.
This study builds on brand transgression research and extends it by integrating literature on consumer–brand relationships and online environment characteristics. Twenty-one semi-structured interviews with digital natives were conducted.
Analysis of the interview data revealed that online touchpoints introduce new types of brand transgressions that can occur daily. This study expands existing classifications of brand transgressions by providing a more nuanced definition tailored to the online context. Exploratory insights into online brand transgression characteristics that elicit cognitive appraisals, negative emotions, and immediate coping responses in consumers are offered.
This research provides practical implications for brand transgression management in the digital age. Brand managers can enhance relational brand interactions online by developing tailored prevention and recovery measures along the customer journey.
This study is the first to provide qualitative insights into consumers’ emotional and immediate coping responses following everyday online brand transgressions.
1. Introduction
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:
What brand transgressions do consumers experience at online touchpoints in their everyday life?
Which negative emotions are elicited through an online brand transgression event?
How are consumers immediately coping with online brand transgressions (cognitive and behavioural responses)?
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.
2. Literature review
2.1 Current understanding of brand transgressions
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).
2.2 Consequences of brand transgressions for consumer–brand relationships
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.
2.3 Unique characteristics of the online environment
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).
2.4 Research focus
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.
Research on brand transgressions and negative consumer responses in online contexts: an overview
| Source | Aim of the researcha | Theoretical foundation: consumer–brand relationshipsb | Conceptual focus (online vs. no specific focus) | Examination of real-life brand transgression | Research design | Key dependent variable/s | Main findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aaker et al., 2004 | The authors investigate the evolution of relationships between consumers and an online photography brand in response to brand personality (sincere vs. exciting) and transgression manipulations | Y | No specific focus | N | Quantitative (longitudinal, experimental study) | Relationship strength indicators: Commitment Intimacy Satisfaction Self-connection Partner quality | Consumer–brand relationships evolve differently based on brand personality: sincere brands deepen bonds but suffer after transgressions, while exciting brands thrive despite them |
| Hansen et al., 2018 | This study proposes a conceptual framework to identify which social media firestorms harm short- and long-term brand perceptions and become part of consumers’ long-term memory | N | Online | Y | Quantitative (event study approach using secondary and survey data) | Brand perceptions (short-term, long-term) Consumer memory (aided recall, correct reason) | Social media firestorms are mainly caused by vivid prompts, high tweet volumes, and product/service or social failures. They significantly harm short- and long-term brand perceptions and consumer memory and are particularly impactful if they last longer |
| Fox et al., 2018 | The authors investigate the impact of service failures on consumer arousal and emotions | N | No specific focus | N | Quantitative (experimental studies) | Emotional arousal Online consumer review reader anger Service quality perceptions | Negative online reviews intensify arousal. Service failure severity leads directly and indirectly via anger to negative service quality perceptions |
| Wang and Zhang, 2018 | The authors examine the effect of online service failure on online customer satisfaction and offline customer loyalty, and the moderating role of brand strength | N | Online | N | Quantitative (experimental studies) | Offline customer loyalty Online failure severity Online customer satisfaction | Severe online service failures lower online satisfaction but do not affect short-term offline loyalty. These effects are not influenced by brand strength |
| Kuchmaner et al., 2019 | The authors investigate the role of network embeddedness, specifically network centrality and network density, and psychological ownership in consumer responses to a brand transgression | Y | Online | N | Quantitative (experimental studies) | Likelihood to punish the brand Likelihood to help the brand | Central consumers experience a conflict between punishing and supporting the brand, with network density enhancing support in online communities. Firms can reduce negative responses by fostering dense virtual brand communities and by fostering psychological ownership |
| Li, 2019 | The author investigates how psychological empowerment affects consumers’ likelihood of publicly punishing a company with whom they had negative experiences through online complaining behaviours | N | Online | N | Quantitative (experimental study) | Likelihood to complain online | (Low) interactional empowerment positively impacts revenge-motivated complaining |
| Mishra and Sharma, 2019 | The authors examine the brand crisis faced by Maggi and analyse the extent to which a health-related crisis can impact consumer response on social media (Facebook) for a strong and trusted brand | Y | No specific focus | Y | Quantitative (text mining and sentiment analysis) | Consumer sentiment Brand associations | Positive support from loyal customers helped mitigate the negative impact of the Maggi crisis on social media, emphasising the need for brands to address both loyalists’ emotional needs and sceptics’ concerns with targeted communication strategies |
| Jung et al., 2020 | The authors examine the determinants of corporate hypocrisy and investigate the potential negative impact on the consumer–brand relationship, specifically on trust, switching, and resilience intentions | Y | No specific focus | N | Quantitative (experimental study) | Switching intention resilience intention Corporate hypocrisy Trust | Corporate hypocrisy, caused by mismatches between a brand’s sustainability goals and actions, harms trust, leading to higher switching, and lower resilience intentions |
| Powell et al., 2021 | By building on existing anti-branding, brand hate, and word-of-mouth literature, the authors explore the factors that lead individuals to engage in the transmission of negative brand-relevant information on social media | Y | Online | Y | Qualitative (netnography, interviews) | Brand-related antecedents Self-related antecedents Social antecedents Motivations to transmit negative brand-relevant content | Negative brand content spreads on social media and is driven by self-enhancement and social comparison rather than brand hate. Understanding these motivations can help brands manage and mitigate negative content |
| Reinikainen et al., 2021 | The authors examine how the relationships between social media influencers, brands, and individuals are intertwined on social media and analyse the spillover effects of feelings of betrayal | Y | Online | N | Quantitative (experimental study) | Brand trust Brand attitude Parasocial relationship Influencer coolness Purchase intention | Brand and influencer betrayals on social media negatively affect influencer coolness, parasocial relationships, brand trust, and purchase intentions. It highlights the spillover effects between brands and influencers in a “double betrayal” scenario |
| Legocki et al., 2022 | The authors analyse and segment UGC created and shared during three different brand transgression events, to identify which type of inflammatory message is most likely to be widely shared | N | Online | Y | Quantitative (sentiment and cluster analysis) | Tweet virality | Three types of messages are explored: ash, sparks, and embers. Rational, call-to-action messages are more likely to go viral and contribute to online firestorms. This offers insights for managing digital consumer activism and brand crises |
| Youn, 2022 | The author examines the role of moral emotions and concerns (i.e., perceived spillover) caused by different moral transgressions and investigate consumers’ anti-brand behaviours (i.e., negative word Of mouth and patronage cessation) | N | No specific focus | N | Quantitative (experimental studies) | Negative WOM Patronage cessation intention Perceived spillover | Moral emotions and perceived spillover in response to ethical and social transgressions drive consumer anti-brand behaviours, with moral disengagement influencing patronage cessation in response to social transgressions |
| Yadav et al., 2023 | The authors investigate the antecedents and consequences of negative consumer engagement in virtual communities using expectancy-disconfirmation, social exchange, and equity theories | Y | Online | Y | Quantitative (survey) | Brand switching Brand revenge Public complaining Negative brand experience Negative brand engagement | Negative consumer experiences, caused by service, information, and system failures, lead to negative brand engagement in virtual communities. It results in actions like brand switching, brand revenge, and public complaints |
| Gerrath et al., 2023 | The authors investigate how consumers react to service failures on social media during the pandemic and whether brand strength impacts eWOM emotionality | N | Online | Y | Quantitative (automated text analysis) | Emotionality of eWOM | In the context of tweets, consumers’ eWOM emotionality is lower during the pandemic vs. previous years. Tweet tone changed from rather joyful before to sad during crisis |
| Mosley et al., 2024 | The authors examine how consumers who vary in their relationship to brands react to different types of brand crisis through the lens of consumer posts on brands’ Facebook pages | Y | Online | Y | Quantitative (event study approach using social media data) | Anger (before, after) Brand familiarity (before, after) Self-referencing (before, after) Comments (before, after) | Consumers’ reactions to brand crises on social media are influenced by their prior brand interactions and the nature of the crisis. Non-interacting consumers use more familiar language and self-referencing after value-related crises, while those with prior interactions express more anger |
| Davvetas et al., 2024 | The authors examine how a brand’s origin affects consumer reactions and brand performance following a transgression and how post-transgression brand recovery should be managed at home and abroad | Y | No specific focus | Y (study 1, 2); N (study 3, 4a, 4b) | Quantitative (longitudinal twitter data, quasi-experimental and experimental studies) | Consumer sentiment consumer anger Willingness to purchase Consumer forgiveness Brand reputation Net brand value | Consumers react more negatively to misconduct by domestic brands (traitors to their home country), which leads to greater and longer-lasting damage to brand reputation in domestic markets compared with foreign markets. Ethnocentric consumers show a weaker reaction |
| Mazzoli et al., 2024 | The authors investigate the repercussions that social media marketing campaigns as brand transgressions have on brands | Y | Online | Y (study 1, 2); N (study 3) | Mixed-method design (interviews, content analysis, experimental study) | Brand sympathy Brand hate Negative eWOM Brand avoidance Protest behaviours Attitude towards the ad | Brand transgressions in social media advertising, particularly those violating diversity, equity, and inclusion values, lead to negative e-WOM. It results in brand avoidance and protest behaviours, with sympathy towards the offended parties |
| Shao et al., 2024 | The authors examine the effect of celebrity attributes on customer-brand relationships in live streaming commerce by extending a Stimulus-Organism-Response theory | Y | Online | N | Quantitative (survey) | Brand hate (disgust, contempt, anger) Brand revenge Brand avoidance Brand retaliation Brand switching Brand complaint Brand betrayal | Celebrity attributes such as negative reputation can lead to brand betrayal and brand hate in live streaming commerce, with brand hate generating more severe consumer actions (e.g., avoidance, switching, retaliation) than brand betrayal |
| Seth and Soch, 2024 | The authors examine whether the big five personality traits are associated with brand hate and investigate their moderating role on the relationship between brand hate and brand forgiveness, which in turns triggers coping responses | Y | Online | Y | Quantitative (survey) | Brand hate Brand forgiveness Negative WOM (coping) Brand switching (coping) | Extraversion, neuroticism, and agreeableness correlate with brand hate. Brand forgiveness reduces negative WOM and switching behaviour. Extraversion and conscientiousness moderate the brand hate–forgiveness link: extraverts are more forgiving; conscientious consumers are less so |
| Tosun et al., 2024 | The authors investigate how symbolic and ideological consumer–brand incongruity – triggered by negative past experiences – drives negative WOM | Y | Online | Y | Quantitative (survey) | Negative WOM | Negative past experiences encompass problems of the product, service, and technology. Symbolic and ideological incongruity lead to negative WOM and are negatively influenced by brand trust and CSR |
| Verma and Nayak, 2025 | The authors examine how consumers emotionally respond with comments to corporate social irresponsibility (CSI) incidents exposed on social media, and how these discrete emotions influence supportive behaviours of others (e.g., likes on comments) | N | Online | Y | Quantitative (automated content analysis) | Supportive behaviour | Consumers express various emotions towards CSI incidents, but only anger, trust, sadness, and anticipation encourage supportive actions, while disgust, surprise, and joy reduce them |
| Pecot et al., 2025 | The authors explore how historical brand transgressions (HBT) impact current brand evaluations | N | No specific focus | Y | Quantitative (experimental studies) | Brand evaluation Purchase intention/behaviour Approach behaviour Willingness to sign a petition | HBT involving ethical misconducts lead to a decrease in present perceived brand warmth. Brand warmth is identified as a mediator between HBT and several DVs |
| Shin et al., 2025 | The authors examine the impact of corporate digital irresponsibility (CDiR) on brand perceptions, and whether corporate digital responsibility (CDR) communications serve as recovery measures | Y | Online | N | Quantitative (experimental studies) | Brand attitude Brand credibility Switching intention | CDiR has a negative impact on brand attitude leading to heightened switching intentions. Specific (vs. abstract) CDR communications can reduce negative effects of CDiR on brand perceptions |
| Present study | The authors explore how consumers experience everyday brand transgressions in the online environment by investigating consumers’ immediate emotional and coping responses | Y | Online | Y | Qualitative (semi-structured interviews) | Negative emotions Immediate coping responses (cognitive, behavioural) Brand relationship consequences |
The articles are listed in chronological order; eWOM = electronic word-of-mouth; UGC = user-generated-content; n/a = not applicable; aSome entries in the “Aim of the research” column contain direct quotes from the respective sources; bTheoretical foundation: Y (= Yes) indicates that the article applies consumer–brand relationship theory as a theoretical lens. N (= No) indicates that the theory is not applied in the study; Criteria for article selection: based on a literature search using terms related to brand transgression (e.g., brand misconduct, brand crisis, corporate wrongdoing), English-language journal articles in business administration and economics (time period: Jan 2004 to June 2025; online first articles considered at the time of June 2025) were included if they met scientific standards, focused on negative consumer responses to brand transgression, and empirically examined a brand transgression event in an online setting (i.e., the event under investigation occurred at an online touchpoint)
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.
3. Conceptual framework
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:
The diagram displays a flowchart that explores how brand transgressions affect consumer behavior online. It highlights four major components: 'Prior brand relationship' and 'Individual consumer characteristics' lead to a 'Brand transgression event.' This event prompts 'Cognitive appraisal' and 'Emotional response.' The online environment is characterized by factors like consumer empowerment, human-technology interaction, and information volume. An arrow indicates a flow from emotional responses to 'Behavioural response (online)' and 'Behavioural response (offline).' Key terms and phrases are shown within boxes and linked by arrows, illustrating the connections and pathways through which each element interacts in a chronological format.Conceptual framework
Source(s): Authors’ own work
The diagram displays a flowchart that explores how brand transgressions affect consumer behavior online. It highlights four major components: 'Prior brand relationship' and 'Individual consumer characteristics' lead to a 'Brand transgression event.' This event prompts 'Cognitive appraisal' and 'Emotional response.' The online environment is characterized by factors like consumer empowerment, human-technology interaction, and information volume. An arrow indicates a flow from emotional responses to 'Behavioural response (online)' and 'Behavioural response (offline).' Key terms and phrases are shown within boxes and linked by arrows, illustrating the connections and pathways through which each element interacts in a chronological format.Conceptual framework
Source(s): Authors’ own work
mental state of readiness that arises from cognitive appraisals of events or thoughts […] and may result in specific actions to affirm or cope with the emotion, depending on its nature and meaning for the person having it. (Bagozzi et al., 1999, p. 184)
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.
4. Methodology
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.
Interviewees’ information
| Namea | Age | Gender | Occupation | Daily OMUb (h) | Incidents revealed on | Interview duration (minutes) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alex | 25 | Male | Research assistant | 2–2.5 | Fashion, fashion | 71 |
| Julian | 27 | Male | Postgraduate student | 1–2 | Health/beauty, e-commerce platforms | 60 |
| Jana | 24 | Female | Postgraduate student | 4 | Fashion, fashion | 61 |
| Hanna | 27 | Female | Art director | 3 | Fashion, accommodation booking | 55 |
| Sarah | 27 | Female | Product developer | 1.5 | Financial services, e-commerce platforms | 43 |
| Felix | 27 | Male | Logistics manager | 1–1.5 | Food/beverages, e-commerce platforms | 39 |
| Janette | 24 | Female | Postgraduate student | 2–3 | E-commerce platforms, fashion | 73 |
| Melanie | 24 | Female | Postgraduate student | 4–5 | Video streaming, fashion | 67 |
| Lorena | 25 | Female | Research assistant | 2 | Jewellery, e-commerce platforms | 69 |
| Emil | 27 | Male | Logistics consultant | 1.5–2 | Fitness blogs, financial services | 76 |
| Larissa | 25 | Female | Postgraduate student | 1 | E-commerce platforms, e-commerce platforms | 47 |
| Antonia | 27 | Female | Research assistant | 2 | Home/living, mobile communication service | 102 |
| Clara | 25 | Female | Postgraduate student | 3–4 | Fashion, fashion | 68 |
| Nick | 26 | Male | Product manager | 2 | Electronics, home/living | 74 |
| Julia | 26 | Female | Marketing manager | 2–3 | Fashion, fashion | 54 |
| Sofia | 25 | Female | Postgraduate student | 3–5 | Household appliances, e-commerce platforms | 95 |
| Lena | 27 | Female | Media planner | 2–3 | Food/beverages, fashion | 63 |
| Maria | 26 | Female | Procurement manager | 2 | Print services, social networks | 66 |
| Josephine | 25 | Female | University student | 2 | Job portal, video streaming | 78 |
| Louisa | 27 | Female | Product manager | 3 | Health/beauty, fairs | 57 |
| Annalena | 25 | Female | University student | 3 | Health/beauty, fashion | 52 |
aPseudonyms; bonline media usage (OMU)
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.
5. Findings and discussion
5.1 Online brand transgression
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.
Online brand transgressions
| Theme | Sub-theme | Representative quotation |
|---|---|---|
| Performance-related online brand transgressions | Customer service mishandling | “… like with many other online shops, they first go through the basic factors that a customer might have done wrong. And if you’re somewhat more knowledgeable and familiar with the issue, you immediately think, ‘Okay, now I have to answer all these standard questions, even though I’ve already explained the problem in half a page.’ Then you get a short response like, ‘Have you tried this or that?’ and you immediately feel like they haven’t read through what you wrote and are just sending a standard reply. It’s also a waste of time, especially when you factor in the time zone differences, with the time it takes for a ticket or email to be answered, and more time goes by.” (Nick) |
| Return and refund issues | “With the return – well, with returns in general, that’s often where things fall apart for me when shopping online, to be honest. I saw that there were some complications with the return process, and I wanted to avoid that, so I ended up not completing the purchase.” (Hanna) | |
| Personalisation failures | “Okay, so I really order regularly. Normally, the sizes they suggest for me fit quite well. … Then the pants finally arrived, after being lost in transit for a while, and they didn’t fit at all, which was super frustrating because I needed those pants urgently for a work event trip. I had been waiting for them, and the fact that they didn’t fit at all was really annoying.” (Julia) | |
| Bad navigation and usability | “Every time I go on that online shop – say I’m looking for a black coat or a specific item – the filters don’t work well. The site first shows me 100,000 private labels or brands they most cooperate with, displaying all the bestsellers, before I even get to see what I’m actually searching for.” (Annalena) | |
| Technical difficulties | “In general, the interface of this app is not very user-friendly, in my opinion. It often happens that when you click on something, it jumps back, or you get the message ‘An error has occurred’, or the screen freezes. You know that the issue isn’t with your internet connection.” (Josephine) | |
| Logistics and delivery issues | “Even in the shopping cart, it wasn’t clear. After the order, you always receive a confirmation email, but even there, nothing was mentioned. Throughout the entire ordering process, we didn’t know when this pacifier was going to arrive, so we just had to hope it would come in time. That was especially frustrating because we really needed it to arrive punctually.” (Louisa) | |
| Marketing communication overload | “In the weeks following my subscription, I noticed that the number of newsletters increased significantly. I was getting about 5–7 newsletters per week, which was too much for me personally. Especially since the content wasn’t personalised; I had just subscribed, and BRAND didn’t collect any data on my actual interests.” (Clara) | |
| Price changes | “In general, the manufacturing costs for this product have increased significantly, and the margin is no longer manageable. They would have to take the product out of the range. So, basically, they would cancel the order unless I accepted the price increase, which I found really unfair.” (Lorena) | |
| Value-related online brand transgressions | Concerns about (sustainable) business practices | “This often happens on TikTok, where individuals just share their experiences. There were lots of comments where users expressed concerns, questioning how this brand grew so big, even though our generation is trying to become greener and more sustainable, avoiding fast fashion. People were wondering why anyone would shop there. The customer who posted the video criticised the excessive plastic packaging, and many people commented, ‘Why do you order from them if it bothers you so much?’ It made me reflect, because it’s not just BRAND; many brands still use a lot of plastic, yet people keep ordering from them.” (Clara) |
| Inauthentic influencer cooperation | “I was listening to a podcast … and then an ad came on for BRAND. The way the ad was done didn’t fit at all – neither with the podcast’s topic, nor with the guest or the interview. … It didn’t fit together, and I ended up stopping the podcast. The fact that I remember it so clearly shows how negatively I perceived it.” (Josephine) | |
| Discriminating social media advertising content | “When I read the caption for the ad about the kitchen machine, it provided more information, including that it was called the ‘MUM5.’ I found it a bit sexist that they named the kitchen machine ‘Mum’ or used that as an abbreviation.” (Sofia) | |
| Manipulation tactics | “Yes, I was looking for a product. I believe it was shampoo, and I was checking various customer reviews because there were different types of shampoos for different hair types. I wanted to know what others were saying and if one was really worth it for my hair, or if I should go for another option. While reading the reviews, I felt that none of them seemed truly genuine. They all sounded like they were written by an agency or by people who maybe received something in exchange. They were always very positive and not very detailed, quite superficial, for example.” (Annalena) | |
| Dark patterns in cancellation process | “I just wanted to click the unsubscribe button at the bottom of the email, and that would have been the end of it. But they apparently have different kinds of newsletters, so I ended up only unsubscribing from one. It just didn’t work. I think over a span of two months, every two weeks I would try to unsubscribe again.” (Jannette) | |
| Deceptive digital promotion and targeting | “But the more I read the fine print, which I had to find all the way at the bottom of the page, I realised that the offer didn’t even apply to me because offer A was only for new customers. I thought, ‘Why are they even sending this to me?’ since I’m not a new customer.” (Felix) | |
| Personal data exploitation | “And perhaps also disappointed, because if I’m sharing personal data with a brand, I don’t want it to be exploited just to send me daily messages that I’m not interested in.” (Clara) | |
| Image-related online brand transgressions | Negative unintentional brand associations through influencer | “I don’t think the brand intentionally positioned itself there. This often happens in the fashion scene, where brands are adopted without having direct control or influence, and they sort of just go along with it. In this specific case, the influencer wasn’t even unlikable, but I just didn’t associate their clothing style with the lifestyle of that scene. And that’s where the dissonance occurred for me.“ (Alex) |
| Negative unintentional brand associations through digital brand community | “This was on an Instagram page … So, you get to see posts and actions from all over Europe or the world from these [soccer] scenes. In this case – … You could clearly tell from their tattoos that they were part of the far-right, possibly even the extreme-right spectrum. … From that point on, the brand was completely tarnished for me because I don’t want to have anything to do with that political ideology. I definitely wouldn’t want it in my wardrobe because I don’t want to signal either that I don’t care or that I’m in solidarity with such a mindset.” (Alex) |
Online brand transgression events were reported across various brands (service brands, product brands, retailers’ brands)
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:
Every time I go on that online shop – say I’m looking for a black coat or a specific item – the filters don’t work well. The site first shows me 100,000 private labels or brands they most cooperate with, displaying all the bestsellers, before I even get to see what I’m actually searching for. (Annalena)
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:
In general, the interface of this app is not very user-friendly, in my opinion. It often happens that when you click on something, it jumps back, or you get the message “An error has occurred,” or the screen freezes. You know that the issue isn’t with your internet connection. (Josephine)
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 often happens on TikTok, where individuals just share their experiences. There were lots of comments where users expressed concerns, questioning how this brand grew so big, even though our generation is trying to become greener and more sustainable, avoiding fast fashion. People were wondering why anyone would shop there. The customer who posted the video criticised the excessive plastic packaging, and many people commented, “Why do you order from them if it bothers you so much?” It made me reflect, because it’s not just BRAND; many brands still use a lot of plastic, yet people keep ordering from them. (Clara)
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:
Yes, I was looking for a product. I believe it was shampoo, and I was checking various customer reviews because there were different types of shampoos for different hair types. I wanted to know what others were saying and if one was really worth it for my hair, or if I should go for another option. While reading the reviews, I felt that none of them seemed truly genuine. They all sounded like they were written by an agency or by people who maybe received something in exchange. They were always very positive and not very detailed, quite superficial. (Annalena)
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:
I don’t think the brand intentionally positioned itself there. This often happens in the fashion scene, where brands are adopted without having direct control or influence, and they sort of just go along with it. In this specific case, the influencer wasn’t even unlikable, but I just didn’t associate his clothing style with the lifestyle of that scene. And that’s where the dissonance occurred for me. (Alex)
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.
5.2 Consumers’ cognitive-emotional responses to online brand transgression
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.
Consumers’ cognitive-emotional responses following an online brand transgression
| Responsibility dimension | Negative emotion | Cognitive appraisals (context-specific factors) | Representative quotation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Other-attributed | Aggression | Lack of available information on malfunctions; perceived ineffectiveness of own efforts; failure of vouchers to work, despite being the initial motivator for purchase | Exemplary quote for “failure of vouchers to work, despite being the initial motivator for purchase”: “I hadn’t experienced it like that at BRAND before. But it totally made me… yeah, aggressive in that sense. You have this inner anger, like “Why isn’t this working again? Why can’t there just be a voucher code that works for once?” And yeah, you’re really just frustrated that… well, also that a brand communicates this way because it doesn’t benefit anyone.” (Antonia) |
| Anger | Lack of transparency and insufficient information; excessive or redundant e-mail notification; poor navigation and usability in online shop; exploitation of personal data; unmet consumer expectations for digital services and experiences; inaccurate product recommendations; unforeseen efforts in the service process | Exemplary quote for “excessive or redundant e-mail notification”: “I was really angry because my email inbox was so full, and I actually really like it when it’s organised …. And that overview was completely destroyed the entire time. I had no idea why it was happening. … I also felt a bit deceived, I have to say, because you get the feeling that BRAND thinks they are smarter than the consumer and that they can fool the consumer.” (Jannette) | |
| Contempt | Incompetent customer service; unprofessional newsletter offers | Exemplary quote for “incompetent customer service”: “In that moment, I really … thought to myself, “How can they all be doing such a bad job?” … Contempt in the sense that I was thinking: This can’t be. I mean, this can’t be happening [here]. We have laws, we have contracts. This is a contractual relationship. I paid. So that part is already fulfilled - I can’t just undo my part of the deal.“ (Maria) | |
| Disappointment | Exploitation of personal data; ineffectiveness of voucher codes; inability to unsubscribe from newsletters; unmet consumer expectations for digital services and experiences; inappropriate communication tonality and automated service procedures; betrayal of core brand meaning by undesirable peer group | Exemplary quote for “unmet consumer expectations for digital services and experiences”: “Yes, from the feeling that I wasn’t really appreciated or given enough attention, that my messages were not seriously read [by the customer service].” (Maria) | |
| Frustration | Urgent need for new clothes, but inaccurate size recommendation | “I would’ve actually kept the pants in four different colors - that’s why I intentionally ordered so many in different variations, but specifically not in different sizes. And maybe that was also frustrating, that nothing fit and I had to redo everything.“ (Julia) | |
| Hostility | Brand users representing opposing beliefs and values, made visible through social media | “This self-image-signaling and group-belonging-signaling aspect that‘s important to me when it comes to fashion brands… um, it just stood in such strong contrast to my own worldview and values that I really didn’t want to be associated with that brand in any way. Even though it’s not like a typical brand for Nazis or anything, I’d still go out of my way to avoid any connection with it, because for me, it’s just such a big no go.“ (Alex) | |
| Rejection | Inappropriate or irrelevant advertisements or newsletters; unreliable or incompetent behaviour by the brand; failure to meet industry or competitive standards; perception of being deceived by marketing tactics | Exemplary quote for “inappropriate or irrelevant advertisements or newsletters”: “Actually, [rejection] against the brand itself, because if they had placed this advertisement on Instagram themselves or on any digital platform, I would have said that the people who came up with it didn’t think it really through. And since they can’t be separated from it, even in this case where they ran the ad, I would really say that the brand didn’t do a good job.” (Josephine) | |
| Situational-attributed | Anxiety/ nervousness | Urgent need with few alternatives due to time constraints; dependence on messenger service; uncertainty about key information (e.g., delivery status) | Exemplary quote for “dependence on messenger service”: “… it also made me nervous because … the dependency is just greater. And – dependency sounds a bit odd, but it really is a greater dependency because I only receive this message via BRAND. I could, of course, theoretically ask the person – let’s say, if I had left my phone somewhere else and needed the message at that moment but couldn’t get up and needed it on my desktop – I’d have to ask the person to send it to me somewhere else again. But that’s super inconvenient and would likely take up a lot of the person’s time. So, in a way, you have this certain dependency on BRAND. And in that moment, it made me nervous.” (Antonia) |
| Boredom | Uninspiring or irrelevant ad or newsletter content | “Maybe also boredom, because considering that you’re listening to the podcast for its content, I found that ad section pretty long, and it just didn’t fit thematically at all.” (Josephine) | |
| Fear | Concerns regarding financial implications (lost parcel, unprocessed order, or data lacks); concerns about the future of an industry not becoming sustainable | Exemplary quote for concerns regarding financial implications’: “Yes, so there was fear that the order doesn’t exist, that I’ve spent my money for nothing.” (Jana) | |
| Insecurity | Inauthentic online shop reviews | “It’s more about feeling insecure, in the sense that you just can’t trust it. I mean, generally, I don’t trust every customer review I read either. But I do like to get an overall picture somehow. There are usually some negative and some positive comments, and you can take something from that for yourself. And I think when you feel a bit insecure based on that, you also take longer to think about your purchase decision, and you might conclude to leave more quickly.” (Annalena) | |
| Submissiveness | Feeling out of control or unable to influence the situation | “I can definitely keep scrolling, and I do. I also try to skip over [social media ads] as much as possible. I don’t watch the whole story, but it’s still always there, and I just notice it. It kind of annoys me that it’s in between. Just also partly … it’s often with sound and it suddenly starts. Super loud … And the thing is, of course I have the option to keep going, but I can’t turn off the fact that it’s there. (Maria) | |
| Self-attributed | Guilt | Buying fast fashion, despite awareness of unethical practices; poor preparation in spontaneous online purchase situation | Exemplary quote for “buying fast fashion, despite awareness of unethical practices”: “So, I would also place some of the blame on myself because, although I’m not a BRAND customer, I still support fast fashion by shopping at other brands like BRAND or BRAND. And in a way, I’m also partly responsible for the fact that such brands even exist, even though I’m not an active BRAND customer.” (Clara) |
| Regret | (Purchase) decision turned out unfavourable; initial intuition that potential issues might arise (awareness of online shopping risks) | Exemplary quote for "(purchase) decision turned out unfavourable”: “I regretted redeeming the voucher, even though I didn’t really want to. In the end, I had the hassle of packing up the package and returning it, plus the fact that I lost the money.” (Sarah) | |
| Sadness | Perceived ineffectiveness of own efforts to communicate with customer service; disabled “invoice” payment option impels retailer switching | Exemplary quote for “disabled ‘invoice’ payment option impels retailer switching”: “Because I had often ordered from there in the past. Not just ordered, but also made purchases. And I always found it very pleasant, reliable, and so on -I had a positive relationship with the brand. And in that moment, I realised that this wouldn’t continue if I wanted to keep paying by invoice.” (Sofia) | |
| Shame | Almost spending money for something not needed, because of social media ad | “Sometimes I’m actually glad that the shoes weren’t available after all, because I think to myself, “Okay, I didn’t really need them anyway, and I can actually use the money for something else now,” and then I’m glad that I didn’t spend the money … unnecessarily. So in hindsight, depending on how often that kind of thing has happened and how much I had consumed before, especially in the case of BRAND, BRAND, or other clothing-related stuff, I do feel a tiny bit of shame.” (Emil) | |
| Vicarious embarrassment | Misalignment of brand’s original image and current brand users; embarrassed for peer group due to anticipated future brand associations by new brand users | Exemplary quote for “misalignment of brand’s original image and current brand users”: “For me … it was like I thought: Ah, this person, although I found them likable at the time, and still do, but they represent something completely different. I then felt ashamed for the brand, that it is now being worn in such circles, and that all the people who used to wear it for different reasons might soon be associated with it in that way.” (Alex) |
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.
5.3 Consumers’ immediate coping responses following online brand transgression
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.
Consumers’ immediate coping responses following an online brand transgression
| Coping strategy* | Sub-theme | Characteristics of coping response | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Online | Offline | No specific focus | Momentary brand relationship impact | ||
| Action coping | Gathering or verifying information | x | Constructive | ||
| Engaging in communication | x | Constructive | |||
| Restarting the application | x | Constructive | |||
| Reordering | x | Constructive | |||
| Unsubscribing or unfollowing | x | Detrimental | |||
| Deleting e-mails | x | Detrimental | |||
| E-Retailer switching | x | Detrimental | |||
| Brand switching (product, digital product) | x | Detrimental | |||
| Fast (return) handling | x | Neutral | |||
| Rational thinking | Refocussing on shopping goal | x | Constructive | ||
| Self-reflection | x | Detrimental | |||
| Accepting the situation | x | Neutral | |||
| Emotional support seeking | Texting a friend (complaining) | x | Detrimental | ||
| Talking to friends or family (complaining) | x | Detrimental | |||
| Instrumental support seeking | Asking a professional for advice | x | Detrimental | ||
| Positive thinking | Positive self-talk to continue the purchase process | x | x | Constructive | |
| Avoidance | Search for general distraction | x | Neutral | ||
| Repression of issue | x | Neutral | |||
| Continued scrolling in social media feed | x | Neutral | |||
| Closed browser window | x | x | Neutral | ||
| Put phone away | x | Neutral | |||
| Emotional venting | Shake head | x | Neutral | ||
| Letting feelings out | x | Neutral | |||
| Denial | Continue scrolling through the online shop | x | Constructive | ||
Notes(s): *Coping strategies based on Duhachek (2005)
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:
But I […] went back to the profile and looked again to see what other brands of clothes he was wearing. (Alex)
After my colleague showed me that I supposedly have an account [at a payment service provider] or that my e-mail address probably exists, I checked it out straight away. I tried to log in with it and reset my password. So, there it was, and I didn’t know my password […]. But since you have to authorise so much, I was relatively sure that I hadn’t done that yet and then tried to log in: “Forgotten password”, and then it said “you don’t have an account” either. (Emil)
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:
And I thought to myself that this first [customer support] email hadn’t helped at all and I now had to explain everything again, that I wanted to solve the problem as quickly as possible. At that moment, I simply tried to reply directly to make clear what the problem was because I didn’t feel understood at first. (Nick)
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:
So, I turned off the podcast, and I think it was still during the advertisement, and started a different one. (Josephine)
Moreover, respondents unsubscribed from a brand’s newsletter services or unfollowed the brand on social media in response to an online brand transgression:
[I unfollowed their Instagram account] on the same day. Two or three hours later. (Julian)
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:
And then I thought to myself “Come on, just close it off.” I sort of put my feelings on the side in that sense. And then I tried to think rationally about what the right decision was for this one moment, to complete this purchase. (Antonia)
Other respondents started to engage in self-reflecting processes after encountering user-generated social media content about the corporate wrongdoings of a fashion brand:
… to the brand specifically, that there will never be a customer relationship. There never was one. And about fast fashion: I would say that it leads me to always question myself: “Do I need this particular item now or do I need it because it’s trendy at the moment?” (Clara)
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:
I read the mail again, so I saw that I was getting newsletters again. I think I texted my friend directly and said they were annoying me. Along the lines of I think I’ll unsubscribe. (Clara)
So basically, my first reaction was to communicate with other people. So, I talked to others about it and said that it was really annoying me. I don’t know what to do and then they gave me feedback saying “Okay, that’s actually really bad.” (Jannette)
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:
So, at that point, I was really like, “I’m going to show them now. I’m going to get some advice first,” and I ended up calling a friend […] who’s a lawyer. I was like, “Can they even do that? I already paid for the goods more than six months ago.” (Lorena)
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:
So, I gave myself a little pep talk for a second. I told myself, “Come on! It’s no use getting upset, it is what it is!” And then I just kept going. (Lorena)
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:
That was pretty much it, actually. I didn’t dwell on it any further, but instead let myself get distracted. I didn’t, let’s say, keep thinking about it much more after that. (Melanie)
Yeah, I put my phone aside. I got the email on my phone, set it aside, and focused on preparing for the weekend instead. (Lena)
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:
Then I would say something like, “Ugh, BRAND again,” or just verbally vent my frustration. Or I’d sigh. Just let something out, a little bit. (Josephine)
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:
I think that pretty quickly, or – once you’re on the site, you’re still somehow tempted to keep looking, especially because suggestions for other shoes, for example, are made that are available in your size. So, if I remember correctly, I stayed on the site for a bit longer and continued browsing. (Larissa)
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.
6. Implications
6.1 Theoretical implications
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.
6.2 Managerial implications
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.
7. Limitations and future research
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.
Authorship contribution statement
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.
