Reverse (Brand) Anthropomorphism: The Case of Brand Hitlerization
Reverse (Brand) Anthropomorphism: The Case of Brand Hitlerization
Reverse (Brand) Anthropomorphism: The Case of Brand Hitlerization
brand hitlerization
S. Umit Kucuk
Department of Marketing, Milgard School of Business, University of Washington Tacoma, Tacoma, Washington, USA
Abstract
Purpose – Although marketer-generated brand anthropomorphism impacts on positive company returns is studied broadly, consumer-generated
brand anthropomorphisms that focus on demonizing and hitlerizing brands is not extensively studied. This study aims to examine these consumer
interpretations of the evil, its symbols and personifications of brands as evil, with a new concept: “reverse brand anthropomorphism.”
Design/methodology/approach – This paper provides a literature review of brand anthropomorphism and the application of the concept of evil.
This paper also uses a qualitative analysis with consumer interviews to explore the proposed reverse brand anthropomorphism concept.
Findings – This study’s findings reveal that consumers see corporations as consciously evil, loosely as an embodiment of Adolf Hitler. Consumer
interviews points out that corporate brand power aimed at controlling consumer value systems is associated with “evil,” an evil that secretly aims at
possessing consumers and controlling their consumption practices. The findings of this study indicate that consumers also develop their own
alternative moral market value systems, ones parallel to religious morality. Although “evil” imagery is often found distractive and disrespectful by
consumers, the younger generation accept it as a new and alternative form of market speech.
Originality/value – This is the first study to introduces and conceptualize a “reverse brand anthropomorphism” concept with examples of
consumer brand hitlerization semiotics. Further, this study is also the first study to discuss evil in a consumption context.
Keywords Brand personification, Brand hate, Brand anthropomorphism, Brand hitlerization, Reverse anthropomorphism
Paper type Research paper
651
Case of brand hitlerization Journal of Consumer Marketing
S. Umit Kucuk Volume 37 · Number 6 · 2020 · 651–659
brand, making it seem more human and less like a soulless our earthly world. On the other hand, the look of early Satan
object (Aggarwal and McGill, 2007; Chandler and Schwarz, pictures, which combine the human body and animal body parts
2010; Aggarwal and McGill, 2012). The goal of brand (e.g. wings attached to human body, goat horns on a bloody
anthropomorphism is to trigger a positive social relationship human face, red pointy tails), suggests that evil might also be
with a brand (Aggarwal and McGill, 2012), increasing product among us. Humanizing evil in this way also indicates humanity’s
likability (Aggarwal and McGill, 2007), leading to developing a desire to anthropomorphize throughout history. These
stronger emotional relationship with the brand (Chandler and anthropomorphisms found a new evil candidate during and after
Schwarz, 2010). This, eventually, leads to “brand love” World War-II. Humanity went through very deep traumatic
(Rauschnabel and Ahuvia, 2014). In other words, marketer- experiences during the war that caused many to turn to religious
generated brand anthropomorphism focuses on creating a sources. These feelings and experiences were ingrained in our
positive consumer-brand relationship. collective conscious and a new type of “human-like evil” was
On the other hand, some consumer activists develop their own born, Adolf Hitler. Thus, Hitler is used as an equivalence of evil,
version of brand anthropomorphism to demonize the brands they as discussed by Allan Bullock: “if he [Hitler] is not evil, the word
feel strong negative emotions toward. This is broadly discussed in has no meaning” (Rosenbaum, 1998, p. 87).
the brand hate literature (Kucuk, 2015; Kucuk, 2019a; In today’s popular culture many people, as consumers and
Kucuk, 2019b). This kind of consumer-generated brand citizens, have used Hitler’s famous mustache and symbols (i.e.
anthropomorphism focuses on objectivizing an evil figure, rather swastika) to express their anger and hate toward politicians,
than personifying an object. Thus, this kind of brand corporations, brands, a phenomenon conceptualized as brand
anthropomorphism work in an opposite direction from marketer- hitlerization (Kucuk, 2015). Hitlerian symbols are being used
generated brand anthropomorphism, as depicted in Figure 1. as semiotic disobedience and brand hate across various
This is defined as reverse brand anthropomorphism: finding a consumption platforms, diminishing and demonizing hated
right physical appearance or body for a spirit instead of finding a brands. Consumers often take brand logos and associations and
spirit/identity for an object. In this context, marketer-generated integrate them with Hitler symbols, creating brand hitlerization
brand anthropomorphism focuses on a positive consumer- symbols. For example, in one of the figures, Disney’s famous
brand relationship hence brand love. Consumer-generated brand Micky Mouse’s eyes are replaced with swastikas and Hitler’s
anthropomorphism can be a negative consumer-brand famous brush mustache integrated into Mickey’s face. In
anthropomorphism, and hence, brand hate, in this study’s another figure, swastika figure in Hitler’s armband is replaced
context. However, this paper does not make the claim that with Coca-Cola’s brand logo. Thus, brand hitlerization can be
reverse anthropomorphism is only conducted by consumers and used as an example of reverse brand anthropomorphism.
can be only negative. Other potential implications of the concept These Hitler personifications indicate the power of consumer
are still yet to be observed, such as brand advocates potential brand anthropomorphism. Anthropomorphism roles are also
positive reverse anthropomorphism efforts. shifting from marketers who focus on positive brand
As it is indicated in Figure 1, the first step of reverse (brand) anthropomorphism (Delbaere et al., 2011; Aggarwal and
anthropomorphism is finding the right embodiment for the soul McGill, 2012) to consumer protesters and haters who
consumers wanted to associate the brand with. Put simply, how predominantly focus on negative brand anthropomorphism
is evil personified in a consumer product? The concept of evil used to demonize corporate brands (Kucuk, 2008; Kucuk,
has gone through various depictions, such as a “talking snake” 2015). Brand hitlerization, in this sense, is the building block of
or a “fallen angel” (such as Lucifer in Biblical sources), and in our collective meaning systems and consumer mythology in
14th century was depicted as “skeletons” or a “death body” today’s markets. Then it, perhaps, is one of the few unique
with wings in Agostino Musi’s famous Skeletons. Later, in reverse brand anthropomorphism examples.
medieval times, evil is given a more human appearance when
Lucifer is pictured as “a human body with multiple wings” in Method
Dante’s Inferno, and similarly in Stothard’s and Delacroix’s art
in the 18th century. These wings and skeletons emphasize that To better understand consumer reactions and feelings about
evil is a concept related to the afterlife and does not belong to reverse brand anthropomorphism 28 in-person in-depth
interviews were conducted. The purpose of the in-depth
interviews was to understand consumer conceptualizations of
Figure 1 Brand anthropomorphism vs reverse anthropomorphism the reverse anthropomorphism of evil and develop a basic
understanding of consumer beliefs about the concept of evil
Marketer-generated anthropomorphism
and their reactions to consumer-based brand hitlerization
communications. An interview structure containing various
Personificaon Anthropomorphized open questions was developed in light of the theoretical
ofObject discussions described above. Interview questions were initially
Company Consumer pre-tested with two respondents and, based on their responses,
BRAND
the interview format was remodified and later finalized.
Embodiment
Re-anthropomorphized of Soul
Data collection
Most of the interviews were conducted in a small town with a
Consumer-generated reverse anthropomorphism middle-class population on the outskirts of a major metropolitan
area in the Northwest of the USA. Most of the participants
652
Case of brand hitlerization Journal of Consumer Marketing
S. Umit Kucuk Volume 37 · Number 6 · 2020 · 651–659
653
Case of brand hitlerization Journal of Consumer Marketing
S. Umit Kucuk Volume 37 · Number 6 · 2020 · 651–659
Although some participants viewed evil as discussed above, than appearance.” [F, 501, Business Owner, Muslim]. One
the majority of participants defined evil as if it was a “person”: participant defines evil as an ever-changing appearance that
“a person who has bad intentions” [M, 501, Machinist, transforms one person/object to another:
Atheist] or “a person who knowingly hurt individuals” It could be totally transparent, it could be form of anything. Evil tries to be
[F, 301, Art Director, Agnostic-raised Catholic]; “somebody transparent to lure in unsuspected victims. Try to be transparent to deceive
who is mean-spirited” [F, 551, Secretary, Christian] or to try to hide its own intent [M, 601, Engineer, Buddhist-raised Catholic].
“people who inflict harm and suffering” [F, 451, Sales Rep, Similarly, other participants indicated a difficulty with
Catholic]; “a person who is manipulative and unable to personifying evil by look or appearance: “It could look like me,
empathize” [M, 251, Bartender, Not Declared] or “someone look like you, could be anybody.” [M, 501, Machinist,
schizophrenic” [M, 451, IT Expert, Christian-Lutheran]. Atheist]. Other participants viewed evil the same way: “A
One participant associated the evil concept with person next door you don’t know about could be evil.”
opportunism: “A Machiavellian perspective – the end justifies [M, 451, Entrepreneur, Agnostic]. This is an interesting view
the consequences regardless of the impact on people.” that puts all of us on alert, constantly checking with others in
[M, 601, Engineer, Buddhist-raised Catholic]. Thus, majority our social relationships, as exemplified by Arendt’s (1963)
defined evil as a social concept that helps us to develop a moral “banality of evil” concept. This slightly paranoiac feeling can be
value system to regulate our behaviors. Some others also seen as a building block of morality through constantly
defined evil as knowingly, willingly and consciously, hurting enhancing an individual’s awareness of evil. This view is at the
others, as discussed by a participant: “Evil has a negative
core of most theological references, defining evil as a moral
hedonistic perspective; it just goes for pleasurable for itself –
auditor, who is constantly searching for human weaknesses,
what is most gratifying to him. Harming others, being
testing their soul and exploiting them (Nietzsche, 1990). With
deconstructive.” [M, 301, Content Coordinator, Spiritual].
the fear of evil, it is expected that society reaches a higher moral
Another said: “something truly evil is enjoying the process of
ground by weeding out the immoral from society.
pain, discomfort and misery he created for others. Evil is truly
On the other hand, a majority personified evil with details:
conscious of it, he does it because he enjoys it.” [F, 401,
“Really creepy looking man. Psychopathic looking person”
Business Owner, Agnostic]. This is defined as being
[M, 301, Content Coordinator, Spiritual]. Or, as a pop-
“consciously evil.” This view also shows similarities with Kant’s
culture figure: “almost a ‘Grim Reaper’ kind of look and
proposition that human beings all have an evil side, hence, we can
appearance” [F, 181, Barista, Agnostic] or “the face of ‘the
have corrupted views and evil dispositions (Wood et al., 1998).
Joker’ in Batman movie. It is kind of a sadistic look, enjoys
This view of evil reveals similarities with psychoanalysis that
acting evil” [M, 401, Author, Agnostic]. Some also picked a
sees evil as evildoing and not necessarily being evil (Staub,
1996; Baumeister, 1996; Baumeister and Campbell, 1999; look from popular news media such as “a terrorist’s face”
Sternberg, 2003). From this point of view everybody can do evil [F, 451, Sales Rep, Catholic]. Some also went back to the
without being evil (Friedman, 2001; Sternberg, 2003). In classic medieval look: “horns with a pointy tale, half man and
Arendt’s famous work Eichmann in Jerusalem (1963), Arendt half goat” [M, 251, Bartender, Not Declared] or similarly “a
shares her observations of the trial of one of Adolf Eichmann, red people with a long tail” [F, 651, Nurse, Christian].
the famous mechanic of death. Then, she asserts that Interestingly a few participants also mentioned “Hitler’s face,”
Eichmann was not a sadistic predator who loved killing, rather even though Hitler was not even mentioned to them nor were
he was an ordinary person who was disengaged with reality, any of the hitlerized brand images introduced to participants at
specifically with his own evildoings. His moral disengagement the time: “Icons like Hitler or Satan [. . .] the figure of devil with
toward a hated victim eventually led to inhumanity and goatee, flashing eyes” [M, 601, Writer, Agnostic].
evildoing (Bandura, 1999; Bandura et al., 1996). However, Thus, a majority of participants described evil’s look by using
Hitler was different. He was a “self-deceiver” as he was aware popular characters and visuals, as well as Hitler and his symbols
that he was doing bad things, yet he was avoiding the truth and even though this was an open question. Participants were also
distracting himself so that he could continue to believe that he asked whose face they would see as the face of evil. Participants
was doing the right thing (Jones, 1999). This makes him a “self- were not given any references; this was an unaided question to
deceptive evildoer” (Calder, 2003; Jones, 1999), knowingly help consumers to come up with their own personification of evil.
doing wrong, but believing that he can escape from the truth of A plurality of the participants (40% of participants)
his evil actions (Bernstein, 2002; Card, 2010). These findings responded to this unaided question with the name of “Hitler.”
all indicate that the majority of participants associate the evil The second most provided name was Donald Trump (18% of
concept with consciously being evil and with human morality; participants). Other names mentioned were Stalin, Mussolini,
more like an evil-doing person than evil with supernatural Saddam, Kaddafi, Osama Bin Laden, George Bush, Vidkun
forces in the theological sense. Quisling, Judas and Edgar Allan Poe. There were three cases of
a participant not wanting to name anybody’s face, rejecting the
Embodiment of evil idea of personification of evil as follows: “I don’t think someone
Consumers were asked how they symbolize and visualize evil in can be evil. I can’t put anybody’s face on evil” [F, 251, Nanny,
their mind. Some participants had a hard time visualizing the Agnostic]. Although this question was an unaided question,
concept of evil and indicated that evil is more an abstract form almost half of the participants, by themselves, came up with the
than a visual form: “something dark, maybe not an image, but name of Hitler. This shows that Hitler is still vivid in the
more an emotion that depicted abstract darkness” [F, 301, Art memory of most of the participants, even though they did not
Director, Agnostic-raised Catholic] or “it is more feeling suffer in the Nazi killing machine of 70 years ago. Thus, Hitler
654
Case of brand hitlerization Journal of Consumer Marketing
S. Umit Kucuk Volume 37 · Number 6 · 2020 · 651–659
can be seen as a strong candidate for the embodiment of evil, as Oh, hell yeah! Especially, big corporations. I worked for some of them. They
all care about money! Money over everything. Shareholders they all care
described in the theoretical discussion section. about, they don’t care about people. I used to work for a potato chips
Following this discussion, participants were asked what they company. Our boss, one day, told us that “potato chips makes money, you
think about Hitler or if they could classify Hitler as evil. Each cost me money!” They don’t care about people. It’s sick [M, 501,
Machinist, Atheist].
participant had their own definition of the degree of evilness of
Hitler. Half of the participants saw Hitler as the “ultimate evil” Seeing employees as a cost factor and devaluing them is not
[M, 601, Engineer, Buddhist-raised Catholic] and as an humane, rather it embodies unearthly powers such as evil, as
“incarnation of evil” [M, 701, Executive, Christian], as was discussed earlier. Valuing money over the welfare of human
also described vehemently by one participant: “Absolutely. Not beings reflects a lack of empathy which is at the heart of the evil
corporation rhetoric.
could be, Hitler was absolute evil. His symbols are symbols of
Some other participants also built a strong link between
evil. I think Hitler was incarnation or embodiment of evil
harmful corporate policies, associating them with evil: “Yes,
things.” [M, 451, Entrepreneur, Agnostic]. Some others
corporations can be evil. Those pharmaceutical companies
(36%) saw Hitler as intermediate on the human vs evil
increased the price of HIV drugs for no reason. That is evil!”
continuum:
[F, 601, Lawyer, Agnostic-raised Christian]. Devaluation of
Yes, probably 98% [that he is evil]. He began as a painter, loved his dog. He human life for the benefit of profit is seen as a major reason why
was showing love to his dog and some certain people, so he had capacity to
consumers see corporations as evil. Similarly, another
love. But he twisted his mind so much [. . .] I don’t think he was incarnation
of evil [M, 301, Content Coordinator, Spiritual]. participant used Facebook as an example to illustrate how
corporations secretly take advantage of their consumers for
Others simply defined Hitler as “a human in evil form”
their own benefits:
[F, 651, Nurse, Christian]. It is interesting to observe that the
participant who tended to not associate anybody with evil, and I might just believe that Facebook is evil. Mark Zuckerberg stated that
Facebook is a social experiment on a world-widescale. Are you kidding me!?
hence, disagreed with the personification of evil, eventually There’s something scary about that guy [M, 451, IT Expert, Christian-
found some evil associations with Hitler: “It would be foolish to Lutheran].
not talk about evil with Hitler” [F, 251, Nanny, Agnostic]. Any corporate philosophy that puts consumers in a guinea-pig
Like some of the Hitler researchers discussed in the theoretical status can easily be associated with evil, especially for those
discussion sections, some participants (14%) also thought that consumers, who were not aware of their vulnerabilities and the
he was just a crazy person. Although many participants came real intent of the corporation. Experimentation on consumers
with their own personifications of evil, almost everybody agreed for the sake of corporate benefit can easily be associated with
on the Hitler-evil personification. Thus, findings indicate that evil and Nazi death camps.
Hitler holds an important place as evil. In the second part of the interview, participants were shown
the brand hitlerization images to see if reverse brand
Reverse brand anthropomorphism anthropomorphism signs can be found. Initially, the consumers
were asked if they understood these images and/or could discern
Participants were asked if they see a company/brand as evil after what is happening in the images. All of participants indicated
defining the concept of evil and founding the best embodiment that they understand what the images were trying to say.
options of evil as Hitler. Although one participant indicated Although some participants think that these symbols make
that there is no such thing as an “evil corporation,” almost all sense, other focused on the “shock value” created by these
the other consumers interviewed agreed that a company/brand images: “Probably make sense for a nanosecond [. . .] they are
can be evil. In fact, one participant confessed an association trying to get your attention and inject their agenda” [M, 451,
with the corporation he works for as follows: “I know we Entrepreneur, Agnostic]. Some participants interpret these
(corporation I work for) does some bad things. I don’t like it, reverse anthropomorphism efforts based on power and control
but we are doing it” [M, 351, Business Manager, Christian]. struggles in the society:
Participants justified their idea of an evil company/brand by I can definitely see the primary-surface associations. They are trying to
judging a company’s business philosophy: associate the corporations with evil. I think I can also see a secondary layer
that the corporations are taking the power away from people/consumers.
Some companies, in the name of business, are doing a lot of bad things, Like McDonald’s, it is huge, it is everywhere [F, 401, Naturopathic Doctor,
polluting, and destroying environment [. . .] in that way they can be seen evil. Spiritual-raised Catholic].
They only care about business. [F, 201, Bookkeeper, Agnostic].
Similarly, another participant discusses this same issue as:
Or “Yes, a company can be evil especially the ones with socially “Somebody doesn’t like those companies, think evil within
irresponsible and environmental unfriendly policies” [M, 351, those companies. Someone thinks that these companies are
Business Manager, Christian]. “I would assume there are controlling and those people drawing these symbols don’t like
companies not good to their employees and citizens by them” [F, 251, Nurse, Not Declared]. This power struggle is a
producing bad products. Yes, they can be evil.” [F, 351, main theme presented by participants as the reason why
Administrative Assistant, Christian]. All these issues are at the companies deserve to be called evil and represented as an
heart of the corporate social irresponsibility (Sweetin et al., embodiment of Hitler.
2013) and brand hate concepts (Kucuk, 2019a; Kucuk, This kind of control and power struggles between consumers
2019b). and corporations echo Nietzsche’s (1990) famous “master
Participants shared their own experiences from both (noble) vs slave (herd) morality” paradox. Nietzsche describes
employee and consumer perspectives. One participant masters (the powerful), corporations in our case, as
vehemently defined some corporations as evil: determining what is good and bad; and slaves, consumers in
655
Case of brand hitlerization Journal of Consumer Marketing
S. Umit Kucuk Volume 37 · Number 6 · 2020 · 651–659
this case, blindly follow social valuations where they are called I believe why it is banned in Germany because it is not a speech,
“bad” all the time, which, in turn, generates an “unsatisfied it is intended to carry out violence!” [M, 451, IT Expert,
hatred” toward masters. Corporate control over consumer Christian-Lutheran]. The German ban is intended to prevent
behaviors through brands can eventually raise a consumer the glorification of the Nazis and Second World War, in
(slave) revolt through the development of new value systems in contrast, corporate marketers try to legally ban these hitlerized
which masters are seen as “evil” (Nietzsche, 1990). Slaves then images with brand dilution arguments (Kucuk, 2016).
seek relief from such suffering by establishing a revolution. In Alternatively, some participants built sound logical
today’s world consumers are trying to free themselves from disassociations between Nazis and today’s corporations when
corporate value systems by creating their own morality with they explained their unfairness claims: “No, I don’t think it is
reverse anthropomorphism. Similar to Nietzsche’s famous fair to associate Nazism with Apple. I don’t think Disney or
“master vs slave morality,” we are witnessing “corporate vs Apple have gas chambers or doing experiments on human
consumer morality” clashes where consumers invert their own beings” [M, 401, Author, Agnostic]. Some others emphasized
ethical language and start to call their wealthy and proud the danger of labeling any corporation with these images in
masters (corporations and their brands) “evil.” Thus, today’s unverifiable digital environment:
participants found signs in brand hitlerization figures that justify As soon as a company is labeled that way, people don’t justify and/or take
consumer activists’ reverse brand anthropomorphism acts. time to try to understand or realize that this is actually one person’s view.
On the other hand, some participants found such reverse Sometimes they fall into it without judging it [F, 301, Art Director,
Agnostic-raised Catholic].
anthropomorphism efforts disturbing. These participants asked
questions such as “why they are doing this?” during interviews. A participant expressed that using “the Nazi card” this easily
This questioning is a natural outcome of a shock-value which and randomly actually diminishes the horrifying effects of Nazi
carries an exaggeration for the attention of the audience, as massacres in our perception [F, 601, Lawyer, Agnostic-raised
described by one participant: “These brands are not perfect. Christian]. This view was also echoed by majority of warnings
They don’t hurt people the same way Nazis did and given by Hitler researchers.
dehumanize people” [M, 201, Student, Agnostic]. Some Some other participants felt intrigued by these images:
consumer evil conceptualizations resonated more with specific “depends on who does that [. . .]. We don’t exactly know what
hitlerization images than with the others: “I don’t particularly these companies are doing, I don’t know a lot about these
such as the Mickey Mouse one. Mickey Mouse brought lots of companies” [M, 201, Student, Agnostic]. Similarly, “It
joy to the people/children. You are destroying the child’s dream depends on what the intention was. Do they make money out of
by bastardizing the Mickey” [M, 601, Engineer, Buddhist- this? Who is behind this? It is a control thing, makes my hair
raised Catholic]. Alternatively: stand on end” [F, 651, Retired Teacher, Agnostic]. There
were also some consumers who found themselves in between,
I don’t really understand why Coca-Cola should be evil. They need to put
some types of message. But I kind of know why McDonald’s can be evil. even though they were not totally convinced that these images
Their food is crappy and not healthy [. . .] McDonalds makes more sense to were fair:
me [F, 301, Art Director-Agnostic-raised Catholic].
I think Coca-Cola does pretty awful things, but they don’t put people in gas
This is recently defined as “fact-finding” (Kucuk, 2015), as chambers. Same with the other brands here [. . .] Maybe these pictures are
consumers go back to their experiences or check their well intentioned representations of negativity, what these brands do, but not
accurate. Too much! [M, 301, Content Coordinator, Spiritual].
knowledge about the brand and try to justify what they are
seeing in these images. Further, this reassessment reminds us Some others discussed the fairness of these symbols by analyzing
that everybody has their own version of evil, and hence, finding each symbol one at a time: “I think swastikas demonize the
the right soul for an object is not an easy task. brand, but I don’t think the mustache can demonize the brand
Eventually one participant found these images so disgusting the way swastika does” [M, 351, Business Manager, Christian].
that she confessed that this might even impact her purchase Even though some of the participants do not have strong beliefs
decision: “It is really gross [. . .] make you want not to buy their about what is a fair/unfair representation in these images, they felt
product [. . .]” [F, 451, Sales Rep, Catholic]. However, for intrigued by the images and thought that there might be
some these images are so over the top that they felt totally something to investigate here. This is somewhat bad news for
turned off: “It is over the top. It serves the purpose.” Putting corporations whose brands are hitlerized.
Hitler mustaches makes me go “yeah right” get a life. They Another group of participants saw these symbols as fair and
used to that for Obama, pissed me off” [F, 601, Lawyer, legitimate, saying that this is the right time to use this language:
Agnostic-raised Christian]. This consumer sees this kind of I think it’s fair. For most people Hitler is becoming a distant historic figure.
speech as disrespectful and is, hence, worried that the random His image is not quite scary as it was once. That makes it easy to use Hitler
symbols. 150 years ago, some people would have looked at Napoleon in that
usage of Hitler symbols might give Hitler a posthumous victory way. Napoleon destroyed many people, burned many cities and villages [. . .]
that many Hitler researchers warned us about. a lot of bad things. Now, we don’t look at Napoleon is becoming that way
too. People can use these images easily [M, 601, Writer, Agnostic].
656
Case of brand hitlerization Journal of Consumer Marketing
S. Umit Kucuk Volume 37 · Number 6 · 2020 · 651–659
negativity gained so much popularity in today’s society that this [. . .] these extreme symbols, demonizing, trash talking all is more or less
meant for newbies and initiates. Above that level a person has already made
kind of symbolic rhetoric is a norm now. It seems these up their mind on the issues and the propaganda value lessened [M, 651,
consumers are going beyond the evil that the Hitler figures Artist, Atheist-raised Catholic].
represent and see these figures as a new language form for evil To sum up, a majority of participants were successfully able to
rather than as a representation of Hitler. decode what these images were meant to say to the intended
audience. Although a majority felt distaste it was clear that
Message readability many others felt intrigued. For people who had already formed
Almost half of the participants found these symbols distracting their beliefs and feelings about brands the hitlerization
and misleading: “it is misleading, it is trying to make me examples were not perceived as misleading or distracting, but
believe.” [F, 651, Nurse, Christian]. Another consumer felt as a storytelling tool. The strongest emotional reactions came
that these symbols might be used for brainwashing purposes: from consumers who might have some positive connections
It’s misleading, yes! It’s actually not telling a message they really want to say. with the brand. Thus, there is good and bad news for both
It works like a brainwashing – brainwashing the masses. It’s ironic that corporate brand-builders and consumer creators of these
Hitler did the same thing as creators of these images are trying to do
[F, 301, Art Director, Agnostic-raised Catholic]. images. As one participant indicated, these images are good
examples of “playing fire with fire” [F, 401, Naturopathic
Another participant remembers how these kinds of similar Doctor, Spiritual-raised Catholic].
symbols make her angry when they are used out of context,
according to her perceived justice:
Symbols of disrespect
I think it does [misleading]. Yes. It’s like the guys I saw in the Saturday Participants were also asked if they found these symbols
market. They try to hand you pictures of Obama with Hitler mustache.
They try to equate Obama with Hitler. Made my blood boiled! They are
disrespectful. A majority (more than 80% of participants) indicated
playing off your emotions [F, 651, Retired Teacher, Agnostic]. that using these symbols is disrespectful to Holocaust survivors and
to society, as indicated very well by a participant: “Disrespectful
Some were so disturbed by these images that they could not
toward people who dealt with hateful rhetoric and crimes in the
even pass through these symbols to read the potential message:
past [. . .] It also minimizes what happened in WW-II” [M, 251,
“I completely disregard them. I don’t even see their message. It
Bartender, Not Declared]. Majority participants also emphasize
turns me off.” [F, 601, Lawyer, Agnostic-raised Christian].
that Hitler should not be treated as an ordinary killer, as is also
These hitlerization efforts were found to be unjust and did not
asserted by many prominent Hitler researchers.
serve their purpose.
This, in turn, can be associated with the phenomenon is
Although participants had strong emotions about these
called “Reductio ad Hitlerum,” a form of logical fallacy that
images, they also could not hide their curiosity:
calls on the reader to condemn anything that, even arguably,
I would say that misleading and distracting. You would say what is going on has an attribute in common with Hitler, the Nazi party or an
here. Why? Why do they do this. Leads to people thinking about deeply
what these companies are doing! [M, 301, Content Coordinator, Spiritual]. organization associated with Nazism (Teninbaum, 2009,
p. 541). Although such a logical fallacy might create a danger of
Or similarly, “Misleading because they are so juxtaposing. I diminishing Nazi horrors, the usage of Hitler and Nazi symbols
don’t think they [corporation] are like Nazis. I don’t think it is by today’s disgruntled consumers is becoming common online.
seriously that level. However, it does make me think” [M, 201, Some also found a more balanced approach on how to read
Student, Agnostic]. Some, in fact, reflected their curiosity with these images with free-speech arguments: “It is a free speech and
doppelganger brand (Thompson et al., 2006) arguments: we are in a free society. However, I would also think that this
I think we all have understanding what all these brands are. There is a piece would offend some Holocaust survivors” [F, 551, Secretary,
here that brand is not absorbed [. . .]. This reminds you that there is a Christian]. Although some respondents discussed these images
shadowy side of these brands [. . .] they are not angels [F, 401,
Naturopathic Doctor, Spiritual-raised Catholic]. as disrespectful, younger participants indicated that these images
have nothing to do with Holocaust, it is just a language:
The piqued curiosity created by these shocking images might
work against positive corporate brand building efforts. I don’t think anything to do with Holocaust. How are we going to define evil
otherwise? It is a language of evil. Holocaust is the outcome of evil. But this
On the other hand, half of the participants indicated that is just a language of evil [F, 201, Bookkeeper, Agnostic].
these symbols did not distract or mislead them. Some see these
Most of the participants attached strong negative emotions to
symbols as a story telling tool: “I think it is helpful to tell you the
these images, while younger participants saw them as a new
story. Those symbols are too deeply imbedded.” [M, 701,
form of symbolic language and expression.
Executive, Christian], while some others worried that these
could mislead other consumers without knowledge about these
issues: “Probably. If you show this to someone, they might Conclusion
think this is a real thing” [F, 201, Bookkeeper, Agnostic]. This study introduced a new anthropomorphism concept:
Some other participants attached some sort of anti-corporate “reverse brand anthropomorphism” – defined as humanizing
sentiment to their arguments: unnatural forces such as evil. The proposed reverse brand
I get it. I don’t necessarily believe it. [. . .] I do think that large companies anthropomorphism focuses, so far, on consumer efforts to
have oversized their power and they do some bad things, by nature, so I can generating a negative consumer-brand relationship (such as
understand that some people see them as evil. [M, 601, Writer, Agnostic].
Brand Hate). In consumer brand hate expressions, the evil
Older participants felt that these symbols might impact younger concept gets a special place as the concept helps consumers to
audience, who are facing watered-down versions of Hitler in differentiate between what is considered human, moral, real,
popular media, more than themselves: good and what is considered inhuman, immoral, unreal and
657
Case of brand hitlerization Journal of Consumer Marketing
S. Umit Kucuk Volume 37 · Number 6 · 2020 · 651–659
bad or beyond bad. Although the evil concept is found in they cannot develop their own version of reverse
various brand hate semiotics and has been used as a main anthropomorphism seeds love to their brands. This study’s
consumer hate expression tool in the past (Kucuk, 2015), it was findings showed that consumers are also capable of creating
not clear why and how consumer hatred personifies evil, which complex semiotic branding systems which require more
is defined as reverse brand anthropomorphism. Thus, this exploration, as was also introduced with this study.
study was aimed at filling this theoretical gap.
This study’s findings indicate that consumers define evil as
“consciously evil,” which indicates knowingly, willingly and References
deliberately, hurting others and even gaining pleasure out of Abe, N. (2002), “Getting creative with Hitler: is it right?”, The
sadistic acts. Although participants had various pictures of evil Christian Science Monitor, September 19, p. 9.
in their heads, the findings also support the fact that the Aggarwal, P. and McGill, A.L. (2007), “Is this car smiling
majority of participants saw Adolf Hitler as the embodiment of at me? Schema congruity as basis for evaluating
a consciously evil. This points out that a majority of consumers anthropomorphized products”, Journal of Consumer Research,
see Hitler personifications as rightfully initiating demonic Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 468-479.
feelings in consumers. Thus, the long semiotic transformation Aggarwal, P. and McGill, A.L. (2012), “When brand seem
of evil from a talking-snake to Hitler the human, evil is finally human, do human act like brands? Automatic behavioral
completed after more than 2000 years. Interestingly, this priming effects of brand anthropomorphism”, Journal of
“Hitler the evil” personification did not come from a Consumer Research, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 307-323.
mythmaker but developed in the social consciousness of our Arendt, H. (1963), Eichman in Jerusalem: A Report on the
populist culture. And hence, “Hitler the evil” was born as the Banality of Evil, Viking, New York, NY.
first reverse brand anthropomorphism case. Bandura, A. (1999), “Moral disengagement in the perpetration
Consumer interviews revealed that placing consumer welfare of inhumanities”, Personality and Social Psychology Review,
over corporate profits is at the heart of reverse brand Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 193-209.
anthropomorphism efforts targeting corporate brands. Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Vittorio Caprar, G. and
Consumer participants indicate that corporations and Pastorelli, C. (1996), “Multifaceted impact of self-efficacy
corporate brands who gained more market power in social beliefs on academic functioning”, Child Development, Vol. 67
value creation systems than consumers are at the center of No. 3, pp. 1206-1222.
reverse anthropomorphism. This corporate controlling Baumeister, R.F. (1996), Evil: Inside Human Violence and
mentality is associated with evil itself, an evil that tries to Cruelty, Freeman, New York, NY.
secretly control, and in fact possess, consumer’s minds through Baumeister, R.F. and Campbell, W.K. (1999), “The intrinsic
corporate brands. This shows similarities with the theological appeal of evil: sadism, sensational thrills, and threatened
concept of evil as Satan can secretly possess people and urge egotism”, Personality and Social Psychology Review, Vol. 3
them to buy a brand even though they would not otherwise No. 3, pp. 210-221.
want to. In other words, consumers see corporations as Bernstein, R.J. (2002), Radical Evil: A Philosophical
diverting them into a wrong path, just like Satan; thus, Interrogation, Polity Press, Malden, MA.
anthropomorphizing them with the satanic symbols of Hitler. Calder, T. (2003), “The apparent banality of evil: the
The findings indicate that if consumer audiences see brand relationship between evil acts and evil character”, Journal of
hitlerization efforts as just and fair they generally feel indifferent Social Philosophy, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 364-376.
and do not show too much emotions. On the contrary, if such Card, C. (2010), Confronting Evils: Terrorism, Torture, Genocide,
imagery is seen as unfair the images generate highly emotional Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.
consumer reactions and in some cases anger. Consumer efforts Chandler, J. and Schwarz, N. (2010), “Use does not wear
to find some sound logical explanations behind brand ragged the fabric of friendship: thinking of objects as alive
hitlerization images raised consumer curiosity. If these images makes people less willing to replace them”, Journal of
were supported by well-known truths and the right messaging Consumer Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 138-145.
strategies the creators of these images might be able to reach a Delbaere, M., McQuarrie, E.F. and Phillips, B.J. (2011),
bigger audience. This is the bad news for corporate brand “Personification in advertising: using a visual metaphor to
builders. In today’s fake and exaggerated messaging era trigger anthropomorphism”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 40
hitlerization imagery can create more damage to corporate No. 1, pp. 121-130.
brand valuation than expected. Although brand hitlerization Epley, N., Waytz, A. and Cacioppo, J.T. (2007), “On seeing
was found to be disrespectful to society by a majority of human: a three-factor theory of anthropomorphism”,
respondents, younger participants were more leaning toward Psychological Review, Vol. 114 No. 4, pp. 864-886.
seeing brand hitlerization images as a communication tool or a Friedman, H. (2001), “The impact of Jewish values on
new form of language. This also indicates that there is some marketing and business practices”, Journal of Macromarketing,
meaning erosion toward younger audiences, who also feel hate Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 74-80.
and anger more often than their older counterparts. Jones, D. (1999), Moral Responsibility in the Holocaust: A Study
The corporate brands that receive this kind of criticism should in the Ethics of Character, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers,
focus more on consumer engagement efforts, especially with Lanham, MD.
younger consumers. Overall, if companies cannot understand Kucuk, S.U. (2008), “Negative double jeopardy: the role of
such consumer generated reverse anthropomorphism efforts, anti-brand sites on the internet”, Journal of Brand
they cannot engage in consumer conversations. Then, perhaps Management, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 209-222.
658
Case of brand hitlerization Journal of Consumer Marketing
S. Umit Kucuk Volume 37 · Number 6 · 2020 · 651–659
Kucuk, S.U. (2015), “A semiotic analysis of consumer-generated Appendix. Interview questions and format
anti-branding”, Marketing Theory, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 243-264.
Kucuk, S.U. (2016), “Exploring the legality of consumer anti- First section: embodiment of soul
branding activities in the digital age”, Journal of Business Q1. How do you define evil? Do you think Evil has some
Ethics, Vol. 139 No. 1, pp. 77-93. beliefs?
Kucuk, S.U. (2019a), Brand Hate: Navigating Consumer Negativity
in the Digital World, 2nd ed., Palgrave-MacMillan, London. Q2. What does evil look like? If you need to draw evil, how
Kucuk, S.U. (2019b), “Consumer brand hate: steam rolling would you draw it?
whatever I see”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 36 No. 5,
pp. 431-443. Q3. If you need to put a face on evil, whose face would that
Nietzsche, F. (1976), Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Translated by be?
Walter Kaufman, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth.
Q4. Do you think a person can be defined as evil? Do you
Nietzsche, F. (1990), Beyond Good and Evil, translated by R.J.
think a company, and/or a brand be defined as evil? What
Hollingdale, Penguin Books, London. do you think?
Rauschnabel, P.A. and Ahuvia, A.C. (2014), “You’re so
lovable: anthropomorphism and brand love”, Journal of Second Section: reverse anthropomorphism
Brand Management, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 372-395. Brand hitlerization images have shown to participants at the
Rosenbaum, R. (1998), Explaining Hitler: The Search for the beginning of the second section and conversations continued
Origins of the Evil, Harper Perennial, New York, NY. with the following questions as follows:
Staub, E. (1996), “Cultural-societal roots of violence: the
examples of genocidal violence and of contemporary youth Q5. Some consumers use Hitler’s and Nazi’s symbols to
violence in the United States”, American Psychologist, Vol. 51 demonize corporate brands as depicted above pictures.
No. 2, pp. 117-132. Do you think these kinds of expressions of Hitler
Sternberg, R.J. (2003), “A duplex theory of hate: development symbols make sense? Why or Why not? Please share your
and application to terrorism, massacres, and genocide”, thoughts.
Review of General Psychology, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 299-328.
Q6. Do you think it is fair to use Hitler’s mustache and
Sweetin, H.V., Knowles, L.L., Summey, J.H. and McQueen,
swastikas to demonize brands? Or is it too extreme to use
K.S. (2013), “Willingness-to-punish the corporate brand for these symbols? Please share your thoughts.
corporate social irresponsibility”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 66 No. 10, pp. 1822-1830. Q7. Do you think these symbols distract, mislead or in fact
Teninbaum, G.H. (2009), “Reductio ad hitlerum: trumping change your attitude toward the targeted brands above?
the judicial Nazi card”, Michigan State Law Review, Vol. 3,
pp. 541-578. Q8. Do you think using these kinds of symbols is
Thompson, C.J., Rindfleisch, A. and Arsel, Z. (2006), disrespectful to the Holocaust survivors? Or nothing to
“Emotional branding and the strategic value of the do with it? Please share your thoughts.
doppelgänger brand image”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 70
Q9. Please feel free to share additional thoughts you might have.
No. 1, pp. 50-64.
Wood, A., Di Giovanni, G. and Kant, I. (1998), “Religion
within the boundaries of mere reason”, Immanuel Kant. Corresponding author
Religion and Rational Theology, Cambridge University Press, S. Umit Kucuk can be contacted at: sukucuk.research@
Cambridge, MA. gmail.com
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]
659