Blogs:

Newsarama Blogs Home > Article: Fanboyism and Brand Loyalty

Fanboyism and Brand Loyalty

June 7th, 2010
Author Lucas Siegel

by David McRaney

This article was authored by David McRaney and republished with permission of http://wwww.youarenotsosmart.com

The Misconception: You prefer the things we own over the things we don’t because we made rational choices when we bought them.

The Truth: You prefer the things you own because you rationalize your past choices to protect your sense of self.

The Internet changed the way people argue.

Check any comment system, forum or message board and you will find fanboys going at it, debating why their chosen product is better than the other guy’s.

In modern consumer cultures like America, people compete for status through comparing their taste in products. (You can read more on how that works here: Selling Out).

Mac vs. PC, PS3 vs. XBox 360, iPhone vs. Android – it goes on and on.

Usually, these arguments are between men, because men will defend their ego no matter how slight the insult. These are also usually about geeky things that cost lots of money, because these battles take place on the Internet where tech-savvy people get rowdy, and the more expensive a purchase, the greater the loyalty to it.

Fanboyism isn’t anything new, it’s just a component of branding, which is something marketers and advertisers have known about since Quaker Oats created a friendly logo to go on their burlap sacks.

There was, of course, no friendly Quaker family making the oats back in 1877. The company wanted people to associate the trustworthiness and honesty of Quakers with their product. It worked.

This was one of, if not the first, such attempt to create brand loyalty – that nebulous emotional connection people have with certain companies which turns them into defenders and advocates for corporations who don’t give a shit.

In experiments where people were given Coke and Pepsi in unmarked cups and then hooked up to a brain scanner, the device clearly showed a certain number of them preferred Pepsi while tasting it.

When those people were told they where drinking Pepsi, a fraction of them, the ones who had enjoyed Coke all their lives, did something unexpected. The scanner showed their brains scrambling the pleasure signals, dampening them. They then told the experimenter afterward they had preferred Coke in the taste tests.

They lied, but in their subjective experiences of the situation, they didn’t. They really did feel like they preferred Coke after it was all over, and they altered their memories to match their emotions.

They had been branded somewhere in the past and were loyal to Coke. Even if they actually enjoyed Pepsi more, huge mental constructs prevented them from admitting it, even to themselves.

Add this sort of loyalty to something expensive, or a hobby which demands a large investment of time and money, and you get a fanboy. They defend their favorite stuff and ridicule the competition, ignoring facts if they contradict their emotional connection.

So, what creates this emotional connection to stuff and the companies who make doo-dads?

Marketers and advertising agencies call the opposite of fanboys hostages.

Hostages have no choice but to buy certain products, like toilet paper and gasoline. Since they can’t choose to own or not to own the product, they are far less likely to care if one version of toilet paper is better than another, or one gas station’s fuel is made by Shell or Chevron.

On the other hand, if the product is unnecessary, like an iPad, there is a great chance the customer will become a fanboy because they had to choose to spend a big chunk of money on it. It’s the choosing one thing over another which leads to narratives about why you did it.

If you have to rationalize why you bought a luxury item, you will probably find ways to see how it fits in with your self-image.

Branding builds on this by giving you the option to create the person you think you are through choosing to align yourself with the mystique of certain products.

Apple advertising, for instance, doesn’t mention how good their computers are. Instead, they give you examples of the sort of people who purchase those computers. The idea is to encourage you to say, “Yeah, I’m not some stuffy, conservative nerd. I have taste and talent and took art classes in college.”

Are Apple computers better than Microsoft-based computers? Is one better than the other when looked at empirically, based on data and analysis and testing and objective comparisons?

It doesn’t matter.

Those considerations come after a person has begun to see themselves as the sort of person who would own one. If you see yourself as the kind of person who owns Apple computers, or who drives hybrids, or who smokes Camels, you’ve been branded.

Once a person is branded, they will defend their brand by finding flaws in the alternative choice and pointing out benefits in their own.

There are a number of cognitive biases which converge to create this behavior.

The Endowment Effect pops up when you feel like the things you own are superior to the things you do not.

Psychologists demonstrate this by asking a group of people how much they think a water bottle is worth. The group will agree to an amount around $5, and then someone in the group will be given the bottle for free.

Then, after an hour, they ask the person how much they would be willing to sell the bottle back to the experimenter for. They usually ask for more money, like $8.

Ownership adds special emotional value to things, even if those things were free.

Another bias is the Sunk Cost Fallacy. This is when you’ve spent money on something you don’t want to own or don’t want to do and can’t get it back.

For instance, you might pay too much for some takeout food that really sucks, but you eat it anyway, or you sit through a movie even after you realize it’s terrible.

Sunk Cost can creep up on you too. Maybe you’ve been a subscriber to something for a long time and you realize it costs too much, but you don’t end your subscription because of all the money you’ve invested in the service so far.

Is Blockbuster better than Netflix, or Tivo better than a generic DVR? If you’ve spent a lot of money on subscription fees, you might be unwilling to switch to alternatives because you feel invested in the brand.

These biases feed into the big daddy of behaviors which is most responsible for branding, fanboyism and Internet arguments about why the thing you own is better than the thing the other guy owns – Choice Supportive Bias.

Choice Supportive Bias is a big part of being a person, it pops up all the time when you buy things.

It works like this: You have several options, like say for a new television. Before you make a choice you tend to compare and contrast all the different qualities of all the televisions on the market.

Which is better, Samsung or Sony, plasma or LCD 1080p or 1080i – ugh, so many variables!

You eventually settle on one option, and after you make your decision you then look back and rationalize your actions by believing your television was the best of all the televisions you could have picked.

In retail, this is a well-understood phenomenon, and to prevent Buyer’s Remorse they try not to overwhelm you with choice. Studies show if you have only a handful of options at the point of purchase, you will be less likely to fret about your decision afterward.

It’s purely emotional, the moment you pick. People with brain damage to their emotional centers who have been rendered into Spock-like beings of pure logic find it impossible to decide between things as simple as which cereal to buy. They stand transfixed in the aisle, contemplating every element of their potential decision – the calories, the shapes, the net weight – everything. They can’t pick because they have no emotional connection to anything, no emotional motivations.

To combat postdecisional dissonance, the feeling you have committed to one option when the other option may have been better, you make yourself feel justified in what you selected to lower the anxiety brought on by questioning yourself.

All of this forms a giant neurological cluster of associations, emotions, details of self-image and biases around the things you own.

This is why all over the Internet there are people in word fights over video games and sports teams, cell phones and TV shows.

The Internet provides a fertile breeding ground for this sort of behavior to flourish.

So, the next time you reach for the mouse and get ready to launch and angry litany of reasons why your favorite – thing – is better than the other person’s, hesitate.

Realize you have your irrational reasons, and so do they, and nothing will be gained by your proselytizing.

More on youarenotsosmart.com

  • Selling Out
  • The Misinformation Effect
  • The Monty Hall Problem
  • 25 Responses to “Fanboyism and Brand Loyalty”
    1. Bryan H Says:

      Wow, very cool. Best article I’ve read in awhile, thank you.

    2. JoshF Says:

      I have to agree with Bryan, great article. It’s funny to think of how much the net has changed the dialog on so many subjects (and more often than not for the worse).

    3. Jack Says:

      Is this reverse psychology? LOL In the midst of an effort to get people to comment more on your boards, you publish a psychological marketing thesis on why the arguing and debate of personal preferences on a public forum is wasteful and merely self serving? ;)

    4. Wayne Says:

      Interesting. I think that it only really works if all works/items/things of value are all of the same quality. Obviously the perception of quality varies from person to person, but I think most people are ultimately more rational than irrational – what about the person who DOES drop his service or subscription or favorite title when it drops below a certain threshold of quality despite how much time or money is invested in it? In other words, how does this work for people who have no attachment to the past?

    5. Ryan Says:

      Wayne,

      That depends on how much you value yourself or your sense of self.

    6. dan Says:

      I work in advertising. I’ve never referred to members of my client’s audience as “hostages.” Ick poo.

    7. KET Says:

      dan, that’s probably because your client probably weren’t discount or dollar store retailers. Low income consumers are often ‘held hostage’ to whatever price these stores decide to sell essential items (such as laundry and paper products) on any given week.

    8. Kolymar Says:

      *Doing my best Will Ferrell impersonation*

      EVERYTHING I OWN IS THE BEST. ANYTHING I CHOOSE IS THE BEST. MY TASTE IS IMPECCABLE. I’M THE KING OF THE WORLD.

    9. Ian Says:

      Great article and rings very true.

    10. Joe S. Walker Says:

      Facile clever-cleverness written by/for the kind of person who likes to feel superior and be offensive while being careful not to say anything that might actually get you into trouble.

    11. Harlock999 Says:

      Actually, this phenomenon is known as the cognitive dissonance theory. Or selective exposure.

      It’s studied in the mass communications departments of universities all over the world.

      Not exactly what I’d call “facile clever-cleverness”…

    12. Captain Temerity Says:

      I liked this article. But now I’m not sure if I really liked it, or just feel like I need to like it because of the time I invested in reading it.

      I’m gonna’ go with “liked it…”

    13. James Says:

      This article was poorly researched and heavily flawed. The so-called “Pepsi” experiments are an “almost” urban myth. Yes, they DID happen, so they claim, but where’s the published paperwork? Second of all, PepsiCo funded the tests. It’s a well-known statistical truth that studies tend to favor those who spend the most on them.

      Second of all, the first recorded trademark was for Bass Beer – in England – and it was the red triangle. Quaker Oats??? WTF? Nowhere NEAR the first trademark. A little research would have yielded this fact quite simply. Makes me question the veracity of this entire article.

    14. Rated_R(ob)KO Says:

      @James –

      1.) Where do you see ANYTHING about “trademark”?? He says “Family Friendly Logo”. Nothing family friendly about a red triangle on beer…

      “Fanboyism isn’t anything new, it’s just a component of branding, which is something marketers and advertisers have known about since Quaker Oats created a friendly logo to go on their burlap sacks.

      There was, of course, no friendly Quaker family making the oats back in 1877. The company wanted people to associate the trustworthiness and honesty of Quakers with their product. It worked.

      This was one of, if not the first, such attempt to create brand loyalty – that nebulous emotional connection people have with certain companies which turns them into defenders and advocates for corporations who don’t give a shit.”

      2.) The article was not poorly researched or heavily flawed. Tests favor those who spend the most on them? Yeah? Then, why did McDonald’s have the Third Pounder Angus burgers in a testing phase for over 3 years before they were mass produced for the public? No one liked the choices for the burgers. They had to get it right. People didn’t “favor” it just because it was a new burger from McDonald’s. You just didn’t like what he had to say. It obviously hit you on some sort of tether of emotion. So, stop being pretentious.

    15. WanderingTamer Says:

      Man, Vulcan’s would be totally screwed. They’d never be able to buy anything.

    16. Devil_Hanzo Says:

      I try very hard not to be a fanboy.

      I prefer PCs because I have the most experience with them. I have nothing against Macs or Apple products (I love my iPod and I’m considering getting a iPad eventually). I keep hearing that Macs are better for video editing, and while I’m not sure that’s true, I’m sure there are some things in which a Mac does better than a PC, and vice versa.

      I prefer Pepsi to Coke, but I will drink coke anytime it’s available, even more often then Pepsi since it’s more widely available. Given the choice, I would go with Pepsi, as I genuinely prefer the taste.

      I just got a PS3, but I’ve had a 360 for a few years now. When it comes to consoles; it’s all about the games. At this point and time, I still prefer my 360 because it has all the games I enjoy. However, if all games were available on all consoles, I would probably buy most of them for the PS3, as it’s graphics are a tad bit better. Also, because 360s are known to have more hardware issues (I’ve already had one red ring of death repair), I would tend to buy more for my PS3.

      I prefer DC to Marvel, but that’s really just because of the characters. I do read Marvel from time to time, but since I’m more into Batman and Superman than Wolverine and Spiderman, I’ve chosen my camp.

    17. mercwiththemouth Says:

      This article also applies to peoples’ preferences for a political party.

    18. Generalzod33 Says:

      This article supports the idea that people who buy product they don’t actually enjoy will defend it, but does it say anything about people who buy product they end up hating, but still buy month after month? THOSE are the people who REALLY make me roll my eyes. THEY’RE the ones who most likely will run to a messageboard like this to whine and complain, clogging otherwise “friendly” boards with nonsense and flame wars.

    19. Dhaise Says:

      Now see, if all of you “I only buy/read/ dc/marvel” guys had actually bought Wildcats 3.0, you could have had all this info and a kickass story years ago.

    20. Axon Rey Says:

      I’m not particularly moved by this article, nor too enlightened by it. Most of this seems like old news- but I think it ignores a point that most “fanboyism” or whatever one would like to call it, at some point, had roots in legitimacy. I can wholeheartedly say I have never bought a product, hated it, and continued to support it. I will say that I have bought a product, enjoyed it, and continued to support even after a decline in quality. If I smell shit right from the get-go, I tend to jump ship.

      Also, appreciation to Dhaise, as I always enjoy a call-out to Wildcats 3.0, the best comic not nearly enough people have read.

    21. Joe H Says:

      Actually, Axon, the article, while not expressly covering that, does allude to it. It talks about how when people invest in time and money, no matter the quality of the product, even if the product sours over time, the buyer will make justifications to support the buying habits. So, if someone has been buying the product for a long time, even if it’s no good anymore, they’ll still stick with it, because of the time and money already put into it while it was still good. The quality may have been what prompted them to buy it in the first place, but the time and money invested in it is what keeps them buying.

    22. Christopher Says:

      I guess this explains why I kept watching Heroes until the bitter end!

    23. Geek Gazette Says:

      Great article. As a psych major I’ve heard all of this, in some form, before, but it was still interesting.

    24. AJ Ryan Says:

      The Pepsi/Coke thing is bullshit. It is like people saying video games stimulate aggression in the brain. We can’t actually conclude that because that isn’t really how the brain works. To this day studies of that type can at best hope to show a correlation between a stimulus and a part of the brain.

      Aside from that gripe, yeah the article is pretty much dead on. People choose a side and stick with it in spite of their own best interests. Republicans and Democrats, Marvel and DC fans, or what have you.

      Personally, I hate brand loyalty. Give me the best product for the best price, and I will still complain about its every failing and shortfall. I think it is fine to be critical of the products you choose not to buy, but it makes no sense to be any less critical of the products that you do buy.

    25. ipad on sale Says:

      Better impart. Thanks for posting such an in depth impression. I’ve handled one in the shop, but your narrate covered alot of ground that i couldn’t accompanying such a exiguous number of time. based on my in-store undergo and your characterize i think i’ll be

    Leave a Reply »