A typology of the perceived risks in the context of consumer brand resistance

<jats:sec> <jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Purpose</jats:title> <jats:p>This paper aims to provide a typology of perceived risk in the context of consumer brand resistance and thus answers the following question: how do consumers perceive the risk they take when resisting brands?</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Design/methodology/approach</jats:title> <jats:p>Two qualitative methods were used. In-depth interviews were carried out with 15 consumers who resist brands. An ethnography was carried out for ten months in an international pro-environmental NGO.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Findings</jats:title> <jats:p>This multiple qualitative method design led to the identification of four types of risks taken by consumers. The four categories of perceived risks identified are performance (lack of suitable alternatives for the brand), social issues (stigma and exclusion), legal reasons (legal proceedings) or physical considerations (violation of physical integrity). These risks are located along a continuum of resistance intensity. Resistance intensity levels are avoidance, offline word-of-mouth, online word-of-mouth, boycott, activism and finally extreme acts.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Originality/value</jats:title> <jats:p>This study provides a framework that integrates perceived risks within the context of brand resistance. The paper highlights extreme acts of resistance and questions the limits of such behaviors.</jats:p> </jats:sec>