English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Defining key terms serves an important role in setting boundary conditions (Gundlach 2007). For example, when reviewing the table of contents for a book concerning marketing and public policy, interesting questions—and contested responses—might emerge regarding what subject matter should be included as well as excluded. In this introduction to the special issue on anticonsumption, marketing, and public policy, we provide a definition for these three key terms, which provide scope for what might be covered in a special issue on such subject matter. We also illustrate how the domains of anticonsumption, marketing, and public policy might intersect. Anticonsumption is commonly defined as “a resistance to, distaste of, or even resentment or rejection of, consumption” (Zavestoski 2002, p. 121). Consistent with the notion of resistance, the prefix “anti-” indicates being opposed to something (Roux 2007), and anticonsumption research is focused on the reasons against consumption (Chatzidakis and Lee 2013). Not surprisingly, then, anticonsumption subject matter has pertained to brand avoidance (e.g., Lee, Motion, and Conroy 2009), boycotting (e.g., Klein, Smith, and John 2004), consumer movements and activism (e.g., Kozinets and Handelman 2004), consumer resistance (e.g., Mikkonen and Bajde 2013), culturejamming (e.g., Thompson, Rindfleisch, and Arsel, 2006), brand sabotage (e.g., Kähr et al. 2016), and brand dilution (e.g., Kucuk 2016). Such research has shown that oppositional activities can be at a brandor corporate-specific level (e.g., anti-Monsanto, anti-Nike) or directed more broadly (e.g., anti–genetically modified organisms, anti–fast fashion, anti-advertising); in some instances, consumers may even attempt to escape the market and propose alternative exchange practices (Kozinets 2002). Unlike Zavestoski’s (2002) widely referenced definition of anticonsumption, “consumption” often goes unspecified. Consumption can be conceptualized as dynamics surrounding a purchase decision (e.g., Schiffman, Kanuk, and Das 2006) or, more colloquially, the depletion of resources. The multiple definitions of consumption can have implications for how scholarly work might be contextualized within the domain of anticonsumption. The examination of sharing practices, for example, can involve a purchase decision in which there is a monetary exchange (e.g., Capital Bikeshare, as depicted in Figure 1) or acquisitions that do not necessarily involve monetary exchange (e.g., a public library). Regardless, for such examples, consumers do not obviously demonstrate being against the acquisition of something, and collaborative consumption, which is a highly related concept to sharing (Belk 2014), also does not suggest resistance. Nevertheless, Zavestoski (2002) does clarify that consumers making a purchase demonstrate a preference for one good while also deciding against other alternatives (see also Chatzidakis and Lee [2013]). Moreover, if consumers are motivated to rent bicycles as a sustainable alternative to other modes of transport or share and reuse books with an aim of less books being produced and reducing the amount of paper being printed, then we can more obviously see how scholarly work on sharing can be considered within the domain of anticonsumption. In the context of sharing and toy library users, Ozanne and Ballantine (2010) exemplify that some are motivated by anticonsumption reasons whereas others are not. In conceptualizing consumption as concerning the depletion of resources, we can more easily see how anticonsumption research has evolved into the domain of voluntary simplification and being against excessive or overconsumption (e.g., Cherrier and Murray 2002, 2007), as well as the intersection and potential cross-relevance of scholarly work pertaining to anticonsumption, environmentalism, and sustainability (Black and Cherrier 2010; Cherrier, Black, and Lee 2011; Iyer and Reczek 2017). In particular, the end stage of consumption has

Introduction to the Special Section: The Domain and Intersection of Anticonsumption, Marketing, and Public Policy