They're talking phones but the principles apply across the board, from consoles to tablets, to ebook formats:
http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-6452_7-...r-smartphones/
Quote:
THE JOYS OF ANTI-BRANDING
Doctoral researcher Laurence Dessart studies businesses and management at the University of Glasgow, Scotland. Over the last year, she distributed online surveys asking those who actively bad-mouth companies including Samsung, Apple, and even Starbucks, why they engage in such activities. So far, she's observed that personal identity plays a large role.
"People who hate a brand do not want to be associated with the brand because of what it represents," says Dessart. "It clashes with what they see in themselves, and how they want to be seen by others."
For example, one of the most commonly cited problems survey participants reported against Apple was its use of proprietary software and hardware, which is perceived as Apple's way to lock in consumers into its ecosystem.
Perez says it is these limitations that push him away from iOS and towards Android. Due to its open-source software, Android offers its users more freedom for modification. In Perez's case, this level of customization aligns with how he sees himself.
"I'm a techie," says Perez. "Techies tend to lean towards Android due to its openness. I just like the personalization, and not having limitations."
Once an identity is pinned down, there is then a desire to seek out and join like-minded people. In fact, one of the most common reasons noted by those in front of the Apple store the night before the iPhone 5S release was "the group experience" and camaraderie of waiting in line.
Many Apple users cited the "group experience," as their motivation for lining up for the iPhone. This sense of camaraderie can also be used to band against a brand as well.
"The social and psychological benefits that you get from being part of a community are the same across all kinds of people," says Dessart. She also says, however, that there are benefits to banding against a brand as well.
"We have to be part of a community in order to oppose the brand because as a standalone person, we have no weight."
This has become much easier due to the advent of the infinite clubhouse known as the Internet, which provides space for people to meet up and discuss their thoughts. Some might argue that all this spirited debate is really to help others become more informed. Perez, for example, says he started his Android vlog to close what he saw as a disconnect of what people thought the OS could and could not do. He wanted to end the misconceptions and educate.
Perez's desire to educate comes off as sincere. But perhaps the majority of those online who adopt a condemning tone under the guise of didacticism, do so not to enlighten others, but rather to feel smarter about themselves.
Stanford's Nass suggests that people are quick to vocalize their critical comments due to the "brilliant but cruel" phenomenon. This term was coined by Harvard Business School professor Teresa Amabile, after her research found that negative book reviews were seen as more intelligent and reliable than positive reviews, thus shedding light on people's natural wariness against overly-positive evaluations.
"Being negative makes you feel smarter," says Nass. "The guy who says 'I agree' never seems as smart as the guy who says, 'I disagree.'"
|
Basically, it sounds like personal products become Rorschach tests.
What you see and how you react says more about you than the product.
Quite a bit more at the source.