Online anti-brand communities as a new form of social action in adult education

This purpose of this study was to explore online anti-brand communities as a form of social action. This paper provides an understanding of why online anti-brand communities form and how the Internet shapes the educative character of 21 Century social movements. Introduction and Purpose As a backlash against capitalism, there is a growing resistance to transnational brands and corporate globalization. Consumers around the world are joining together to voice their opposition to corporate domination. To cite a few trends, consumers are opposing global brands and linking environmental issues, human rights and cultural degradation to globalized corporate agendas. These anti-branding demonstrations are emerging as a new form of social action. Historically, social movements have mobilized support through the development of a clearly defined goal that attempts to deliver benefits to a narrow segment of society. Old social movements occurred between the years 1945 and 1970 and were associated with economic growth, distribution, and security (e.g., workers rights, civil rights). Family, work, and consumption-centered social matters were disputed with clearly defined goals to enhance the political-economic system (e.g., justice, liberty, equality, emancipation). New social movements represent modern culture and are associated with peace, feminism, ecology, and personal autonomy (e.g., gay and lesbian movement, feminist movement, environmental protection movement). These broad descriptions of new and old social movements are generalizations, and adult educators continue to debate and critique the specific and defining criteria of new and old movements. However, there is sound concurrence among scholars that social movements are important learning sites capable of generating knowledge and action which leads to social change (Finger, 1989; Foley, 1999; Holford, 1995; Holst, 2002; Kilgore, 1999; Spencer, 1995; Welton, 1993; Youngman, 2000). The “anti-brand movement” is similar to “old” and “new” social movements noted in adult education but it also has some unique aspects. First, the online antibrand movement represents a convergence of old and new social movement issues. Issues discussed in anti-brand communities range from workplace equality and corporate domination to environmentalism and marketing propaganda. Second, the Internet has changed the way people participate in social action. With World Wide Web capabilities, action strategies and coalition building are not restricted by space or time. These two unique characteristics represent a new kind of movement utilizing different resources and taking on broader goals. The purpose of this study was to understand the nature of online anti-brand communities as a form of social action. The investigation was guided by three research questions. First, why do online antibrand communities form? Second, what action strategies do online antibrand communities engage in and how does the Internet shape those activities? Third, how does learning occur in online antibrand communities? The Anti-brand Movement The Internet plays a major role in the anti-brand movement because it provides communication methods for people around the globe irrespective of geographical space and/or time zones. Historically social movements have emerged in a geographical pattern, revolving around physical gathering spaces. Today social movements are transpiring in virtual space, which sets the stage for new forms of protest, organization, cooperation, and coalition-building. In many cases, social action communities originate and communicate solely in cyberspace. This virtual community is built around common social and political interests. Communities form online because people are able to come together, regardless of geographical proximity, and identify with a common need, goal, or identity. In the case of anti-brand communities, the community is situated around common detestations of corporate brand names. Various consumer groups have formed to support each other in their efforts to resist marketplace practices and globalized consumption patterns. Method A comparative qualitative case study design was employed to address the purpose of the study. Four criteria were used in selecting the cases for this study. The first criterion was to select communities that oppose popular, transnational brand names. Second, case differentiation was maximized through studying communities that opposed diverse corporate product and service offerings. Third, online communities that had been in existence for more than six months were identified. Lastly, active communities were studied which ensured information-rich cases. Using these criteria, three online antibrand community cases were examined: anti-Starbucks, anti-Walmart, and anti-McDonald’s. Data collection consisted of a total of 15 in-depth interviews, printouts of web-based discussions, and website documents (i.e., newsletters, updates, announcements). Web-based communications were analyzed for the following: (1) the content of conversation, (2) the promoted and dissuaded products/services, (3) the number of people discussing topics synchronously and asynchronously, (4) activities/events being arranged or protested, (5) formal and informal patterns of communication, (6) website graphics and pictures, and (7) symbolic or connotative meanings of words posted on the site and/or used in conversations. Using the constant comparative method of data analysis, individual case and cross-case analyses were conducted. Descriptions of interactions among social action participants as well as quotes, documents, and artifacts were examined to provide a holistic description of each case. This descriptive data was used to establish common traits or themes within each case. For cross-case analysis, data from each individual case was compared with the other cases to identify common themes across cases. Findings Data analysis revealed four distinct reasons why antibrand communities form: 1) in response to a common sense of moral responsibility, 2) to provide a support network to achieve common goals, 3) in response to workplace difficulties, and 4) to provide resources for taking action. Findings suggest the Internet radically affects these social action strategies in five major ways: 1) speed, 2) convenience, 3) nature of community formation, 4) anonymity and 5) widespread viewership. Learning occurs within online antibrand communities through observations, dialogue and discussion, and story-telling. Here, these findings will be elaborated more fully. Anti-brand Community Formation The most salient reason why anti-brand communities form is in response to a common sense of moral responsibility. Moral responsibility is a sense of obligation to the betterment of society. Community members collectively articulate matters of right and wrong with regard to corporate actions. Within each of the three anti-brand groups studied, a common entity (i.e., Starbucks, Wal-Mart, McDonald’s) challenged community members’ worldview of how a corporation should function. In response, moral systems are challenged and community members feel a common call to action. During interviews with anti-brand community members, words such as “oppressive,” “exploiting,” “destructive,” “unethical” and “monopolizing” were used to describe the corporations they were fighting against. All fifteen participants in this study talked about a personal commitment to fight against a corporation. At some point in time, they all made a conscious decision to play an active role in their anti-brand campaign. Each participant decided that it was his or her responsibility to make a change. Second, anti-brand communities form to provide a support group to achieve common goals. It was evident, from the onset of this investigation, that a social support network existed within all three communities. Through nurturing social interactions via the Internet, each community resembled a support group, which also served to legitimize their fight for a common cause. These support networks have three common characteristics. They are based on a reciprocal exchange, they mimic a family structure, and they are purposive. Third, online anti-brand communities form to provide a means for coping with difficulties at work. Through pep-talks, sympathy, and personal counsel, community members strategize together about how to overcome challenging workplace issues such as demanding schedules, unfair pay, unsympathetic managers, or rude customers. In addition, employees receive ad hoc solutions to problems at work. The web community provides a social structure that is not provided at work, offering individual self-assurance and support. When corporations lack a supportive environment, findings suggest that employees search for and find solace from website communities. Fourth, anti-brand communities form to provide resources for taking action. Sharing resources is an important means for creating and maintaining a community. Regarding the antiStarbuck’s case, the website was created to provide others with information about Starbuck’s unethical practices. Soon the website transformed into a central location for information sharing. With the anti-Wal-Mart case, the Internet served as a more efficient and effective means for reaching people and providing them with the necessary information for fighting against sprawling companies. Over time, the website became a locus for the accumulation of knowledge and coalition building. The anti-McDonald’s website was created to educate people around the world about the McLibel court case. By utilizing the Internet, the fight against McDonald’s transformed from a localized campaign to an ongoing worldwide coalition. In all three cases, the website was created to educate others by providing resources for getting involved and taking