You may think you’re defending your favorite platform because it’s just that good. But, according to a recently published study out of the University of Illinois, you may instead be defending yourself because you view criticisms of your favorite brand as a threat to your self image. The study, which will be published in the next issue of the Journal of Consumer Psychology, examines the strength of consumer-brand relationships, concluding that those who have more knowledge of and experience with a brand are more personally impacted by incidents of brand “failure.”
We certainly have seen this phenomenon strongly manifest in the Apple community, though we’re not the only ones, and it isn’t just with technology, either. I’m curious to understand better the reason some people develop such a fierce “Self-Brand Connection,” as the researchers put it. Is it little more that misplaced 21st century tribalism, or is there something else at work?
Wait, so the something you’ve spent a lot of time on, and invested substantial personal energy on, becomes entwined with your self-image? No! I can’t imagine that…
Oy.
The quote is total horse pucky, and it puzzles me why apparently so many continue to swallow such swill.
My intent is NOT to DEfend the brand (Apple), but to OFfend the critics and would-be defamers for their laziness, stupidity, and cluelessness.
Just as it is their right to express their opinions, so is it my right to express my opinions OF those opinions.
One definition of insanity is: the inability to discern fact from opinion.
For lazy minds these days who would just as soon confuse the two, convictions seem to feed more readily on OTHERS’ opinions, as it take s far too much effort to actually observe or experience something for oneself.
I know Apple is a great brand, as I’ve lived and worked with its products for more than two decades. I prefer Apple’s products over most other manufacturers based on years of experience.
They aren’t perfect by a long shot. In fact, they BARELY keep up with my own demands for performance. I ALWAYS want more memory and more speed, for example.
But one thing I know is: every new product they release comes closer to fulfilling my needs. That’s why I’ll be in one of those lines waiting to get one of the latest and greatest–NOT because I’m addicted to the Kool-ade, but because I know and trust the company to each time accomplish some new “magic” which, in exchange for my hundreds and thousands of dollars helps to make me more productive, thereby materially enhancing my happiness and well being.
Let all the fools blabber away about these wonderful “studies.” I’ll be there voicing my opinions, too.
Yes, this happens everywhere. Mac vs PC, iPhone vs Android, Canon vs. Nikon, Ford vs. Chevy, Audi vs. BMW, it’s everywhere. I think this study confirms what most people have suspected all along. They feel a personal attack when their chosen product is being attacked.
I can see why this happened to Apple fans. People actually were personally attacked (verbally) for using a Mac. In the 90’s how many Mac users didn’t hear “eewww, you use a Mac” or “you must not be good at computers.” It triggered a defensive mechanism that manifested itself into fanboyism.
Only Apple users and Apple fans are labled fanboys. Windows and Anroid users are never labled fanboys. It’s always Windows and Android users that call Apple users the fanboys, but they freaking hate it when I call them fanboys. Always starts and arguement about someone drinking some flavor of Kool Aid. Even when I explain to them that I’ve been using Apple hardware since the Apple //. Doesn’t seem to matter.
It’s always the people that hate Apple that use the term fanboy. Admit I’m right, you can do it.
That’s the kind of study where someone thinks first of the conclusion, then designs a study which will have that as a result. And no matter what the data shows, the conclusion always ends up as planned.
I have always suspected this as true, particularly in regards to technology about which the fan has somewhat limited knowledge. As a student, practitioner and teacher of computer science for the past thirty-seven years, I have preached the selection of computer and operating system platforms as an issue that can only be addressed based on personal needs.
In the arena of personal computers, the choices have, for the most part, been limited to some flavor of Unix, Wintel, and Apple platforms. Unix/Linux, while it was my personal choice as the “best” OS, was not (until recently) been a realistic choice for the average user.
That left Mac OS and the Windows OS as the only real choice for the day-to-day user. Windows, for a long time was the best choice for users because of the proliferation of applications available for it, and due to the relative dearth of apps for Apple/Mac OS. In addition, the timesharing and virtual memory modules of Apple/Mac OS was horribly primitive when compared to Windows NT/2000/XP.
That said, the user whose primary usage was graphic manipulation and “desktop publishing”, might see the Apple/Mac OS as the most realistic choice.
The tables changed when Apple put OS 9 to rest in favor of BSD Unix as the core of OS-X. That choice eliminated the technological edge that Windows once had. Additionally, the software development community’s contributions to the body of software available for the Mac has eliminated software availability as edge for Windows.
This leaves the Windows community with only one justification for “sticking to their guns” – price! People continually point out that the specifications of a mid range Mac notebook (say a Mac Book Pro) can be had for a fraction of the price from Dell, or Toshiba, or some such.
This claim totally ignores the value of the fact that the Mac provides a complete package, which provides everything the average user will ever need for a totally immersive computer experience – mail, web, music, photos, movies, and not just storage, but creation as well. The Mac is the complete computer usage/creation engine for the average user.
And for us technologists, there we look under the hood of every Mac there is Unix. This is the blending of ease of use for the average person and of the most technologically sound engine under the hood.
So, are we therefore justified as being Mac zealots and saying that is the only rational choice of computer. Not by a long shot! To the extent that we blindly become fans, we open the door for us ignoring potentially better technology coming down the pike.
It bothers me to see articles in RSS feeds like The Loop or Cult of Mac which simply belittle competitive technologies and the purveyors of such, simply because does not come from Apple.
Wake up and smell the coffee folks! There may just be something better become available. I haven’t found it yet, but I ain’t gonna stop looking.
This very clearly applies to many (but not all) avid Apple product fans (people who own multiple Apple products). SJ very specifically is targeting the digital hub/digital lifestyle market as presented years ago in keynote speeches at MacWorld. Apple isn’t a only computer company – that’s why they dropped the word “Computer” from Apple Computer. They sell lifestyle products that incorporate technology, under a single brand. Noone likes a label, but this one seems to fit.
So true.
The reason why people feel personally attacked is because often they are being personally attacked. Even “reputable” media will use words like iSheep and fanboys when describing Apple customers.
It’s crazy that in sports it is a bad thing if you aren’t a die-hard fan of a team. But if you like Apple too much its a bad thing and needs to be studied.
Here is a study for them: go find a Red Sox fan and tell him/her that the Red Sox suck and he is dumb for liking them. Then time how long it takes to get punched in the mouth.
Oh, of *course* we all conflate our self-worth and judgment with the things we choose to spend time with, to one degree or another. Especially those who protest the most about any implied insult to their sound reasoning and experience. 😉
This sort of thing has been going on far longer than there have been fanboys of any kind to disparage with careless generalizations, or people of any kind who don’t look in a mirror often enough.
Tribalism.
Tribalism is hardly a 21st-century phenomenon. Way back when in Norway, the people in on fjord valley were always feuding with the people in the next fjord valley. Unless someone was looking for an out-of-town bride.
That’s not necessarily true. The media and the database of “common knowledge” is full to the brim with “just so” stories that become commonly used tropes. For an important example witness some of the stunningly stupid ideas concerning women’s health and biology that were commonly repeated as supportable fact even in the last 100 years, until repeated tests and studies contradicted and eventually disproved many of the assumptions of “modern” medicine (modern as in 1930s or so).
My point is that studies like these set out to analyse assumed conclusions and every so often come to conclusions that flatly contradict “common knowledge”. In fact, the mere attempt to test what amounts to “common knowledge” usually exposes the fact that there is no actual data upon which to base the common knowledge conclusion on in the first place.
Witness the allegiance to a particular set of dumb shows about people who build motorcycles. With people wearing the differing uniforms and telling others how the alternate groups motorcycles “suck”.
Here’s some problems with these studies.
There is no problem with the study (as it’s described. I’m not claiming it used sound methodology) as these are issues of concern to advertisers and government. In other words, the data has value.
The interpretation. Advocates of one brand will immediately accuse advocates of another brand of having absolutely no reason to promote or use their brand of choice because the “study” said that the advocates of a competing brand have wrapped their self-image so tightly around said brand that they are incapable of rational thought. This is just a form of binary thinking that will not be applied to oneself, but will be used as ammunition against the other, even tho it’s clear that the study makes no such binary claim. The tell is that the Ars quote referenced by Peter is *NOT* information quoted from the study, but is the already muddled interpretation of the study by Ars writers. As we have already seen in the comments, people have fiercely attacked as invalid a study which almost certainly makes NONE of the generalized claims contained in the Ars interpretation of the study.
The study will certainly not come to the conclusion that defenders of a brand are wild eyed zealots. That’s Ars Technicas terrible implied summation of the article. No doubt the study will come to the softer conclusion stated in the second half of the quote Peter used, to wit; “The study examines the strength of consumer-brand relationships, concluding that those who have more knowledge of and experience with a brand are more personally impacted by incidents of brand “failure.””
The two halves of the Ars quote are almost contradictory in nature. Is someone who’s self image is wrapped up in a brand be more likely to respond to criticisms of that brand? Of course. Is that the only thing at work and is the validity of the criticism invalidated? Of course not.
The list of examples is fairly long.
“Wild-Eyed Zealots Exaggerate and Misinterpret Study Which Has Little to do with Zealotry.”
So you’re saying you’re above this sort of thing because you’re so awesome. Got it.
Yeah, I am, and get off my back.