Abstract
“Fanaticism” and its cognates, “fan” and “fanatic,” have been defined in inconsistent, contradictory, and often, nondiscriminant ways across disciplines. Due to these problematic conceptualizations, and particularly the mixed yet growing state of the literature in marketing, there is a need to revisit the phenomenon. Through a comprehensive review and synthesis of the existing literature, this article identifies the key defining characteristics of consumer fanaticism (i.e. “affective commitment” and “extraordinary pursuit”) and presents a typology (consisting of four types of fanaticism, i.e. rewarding, destructive, stigmatized, and rogue) to demonstrate the socially situated and subjective nature of the fanatic label. In doing so, the authors advance current theorizing on this topic by explaining and resolving the conflicting and paradoxical perspectives that currently exist in the literature. The authors also present a framework that distinguishes consumer fanaticism from other forms of consumption. They propose a research agenda for future studies of consumer fanaticism and demonstrate its strong potential to contribute fresh insights into other marketing phenomena.
Introduction
The term “fanaticism” often conjures up images of religious fanatics (Litvak, 2005), political terrorists (Taylor, 1991), or hooligans (Brimson, 2000; Hunt et al., 1999) that go to extremes to support their cause. However, fanaticism has also been applied to consumers who go to extremes to support or pursue their favorite product, brand, or consumption activity or experience (Hill and Robinson, 1991; Holbrook, 1987; Redden and Steiner, 2000). While historically the phenomenon of fanaticism is generally featured or discussed within the context of religion or politics (usually in reference to a minority group of extremists or people exhibiting extreme thoughts or behaviors) (e.g. Cova, 2005; Haynal et al., 1983; Jafari and Süerdem, 2012; Jafari et al., 2012; Rudin, 1969; Süerdem, 2013; Taylor, 1866), today fanaticism appears to be applied to a wide variety of contexts and is increasingly more common in the general consumption realm (e.g. Cova and Dalli, 2009; Holbrook, 2004; Peñaloza and Venkatesh, 2006).
For example, with the recent launch of Pokémon Go—a free-to-play, location-based augmented reality gaming application (where players are encouraged to seek out and capture Pokémon [virtual monsters] in public spaces)—reports of “extreme” behaviors by “Pokémon Go fanatics” have appeared in the popular and social media (Clarke, 2016; Harrison, 2016; Kasper, 2016; Roy, 2016). Descriptions and portrayals of “Apple fanaticism,” “Apple fanatics,” and “Apple’s most fanatical fans” (i.e. fanaticism over the Apple brand and/or their products) can also be found in the media such as in the Telegraph, the Guardian, and the New York Times (“Apple fanatics camp out for iPhone 5 in New York,” 2012; Fry, 2010; Mitchell, 2008). A play on the word “fanatic” appears in brand names such as Fit-Natics and Cafenatics and in blog posts regarding various product categories such as “Pho-natic,” “quiznatic,” “yoga-natic,” and “Vindaloo-natic” (for “fans” of Vietnamese rice noodles, quiz-based gaming, yoga, and curry, respectively). Many websites are dedicated to or created by fans of various products and brands, such as http://www.disneyfanatic.com (for Disney fans) and http://www.brickfanatics.co.uk (for Lego fans). Marketing managers appear to desire fanatics among its customer base, with the launch of loyalty programs with such a name as the “Shu Fanatic Club” (for customers [fans/fanatics] of the Japanese cosmetics brand, Shu Uemura). Apparently, one can be a fanatic of or “fanatical” over almost anything that can be consumed—from sports, fitness, and health to art, music, television shows, and celebrities as well as products, brands, and consumption experiences. But what does it really mean to be a fanatic or to be labeled as one, particularly in the consumption context? What is the relevance of fanaticism in the marketing context? What is the difference between a fan or a fanatic, and when is a consumer a fan, and when does he or she come to be considered a fanatic?
A review of the existing literature about fans, fanatics, and fanaticism reveals inconsistencies, confusion, and contradictions about the way fans, fanatics, and fanaticism are presented. There seems to be no consensus among perspectives on fanaticism, and a generally acceptable definition of fanaticism is difficult to find. The purpose of this article is therefore to bring clarity to the existing understanding of consumer fanaticism and advance theorizing related to this topic. Through a comprehensive review and synthesis of prior literature, we crystallize “affective commitment” and “extraordinary pursuit” as the defining characteristics of consumer fanaticism. Both aspects are essential to coexist simultaneously for consumption to classify as “fanatic.” These characteristics enable us to discriminate fanaticism from related concepts such as brand love and addiction as well as from common everyday consumption. The defining characteristics also allow us to differentiate fanatics from fans, which is a critical conceptual distinction in view of coherent theorizing. Importantly, we then propose a consumer fanaticism typology, consisting of four types of consumer fanaticism, to demonstrate the socially situated nature of the fanatic label and to explain and resolve the conflicting perspectives of consumer fanaticism in the current literature. The four types of fanaticism include rewarding, destructive, stigmatized, and rogue fanaticism, based on positive/negative in-group and out-group perspectives. In combination, the proposed typology helps overcome seemingly conflicting and paradoxical interpretations of fanaticism to date, as the four types support coherent sense-making of the phenomenon. We thus significantly advance the understanding, conceptualization, and theoretical basis and build the foundation for substantiated conceptual and empirical developments of fanaticism in marketing. In closing, we discuss managerial implications associated with the different forms of consumer fanaticism proposed in the typology and present an agenda for future research.
Theoretical background
Consumer research on fanaticism dates back to 1986, when a special session at the Association for Consumer Research conference dedicated to “fanatic consumer behavior” featured a wide range of topics including the concept of “commitment” (Scammon, 1987), collecting (Pollay, 1987), compulsive consumption and addiction (DePaulo et al., 1987; Faber et al., 1987; Lehmann, 1987), and fanaticism specifically related to jazz music (Gridley, 1987; Holbrook, 1987). The literature has since presented numerous examples of consumer fanatics, such as the hard-core members of consumption communities gathered around brands such as Nutella, Star Trek, Star Wars, Harley-Davidson, and the Volkswagen Beetle (Cova and Pace, 2006; Jindra, 1994; Rifkin, 1999). However, research explicitly addressing the phenomenon of “consumer fanaticism” has been scant, with only a few studies exploring topics such as the characteristics (Chung et al., 2008; Redden and Steiner, 2000; Thorne and Bruner, 2006), lived meanings (Smith et al., 2007), and behaviors (Hill and Robinson, 1991; Thorne, 2011) of consumer fanatics and fanaticism.
Hill and Robinson (1991: 79) discovered that fanatic consumer behavior affects many aspects of the consumers’ lives and produces both positive and negative affective outcomes. Redden and Steiner (2000: 333) proposed a conceptual framework and three defining characteristics of consumer fanaticism—intensity, intolerance, and incoherence—and maintained that fanatics’ “incoherence” drives them toward “counterproductive extremism” and behaviors that work against the achievement of goals. On the other hand, Thorne and Bruner (2006: 65) identified the common characteristics of consumer fans and fanatics as internal involvement, desire for external involvement, wish to acquire, and desire for social interaction. They highlighted that, in a departure from “past studies that emphasized fanaticism as demonstrated through extreme activities and behaviour…this study shows that there are common characteristics across several different genres of fans…[which] are neither extreme nor aberrant” (Thorne and Bruner, 2006: 65).
Smith et al. (2007: 77, 91) explored the “lived meanings of fanaticism” and noted how “stigmatizations are used, accepted, modified, or refuted” by fanatical consumers “in the definition and construction of identity.” They also found that consumers use “extreme endpoints in fandom” to justify or deny their fanaticism, and felt a sense of “pity for those not as deeply involved in some endeavor” as they are. Chung et al. (2008: 333) explored the “inertial (addictive and obsessive-compulsive) elements associated with fanaticism,” providing evidence to argue that consumer fanaticism “is not always detrimental to the individual.” Finally, Thorne (2011) explored the different behaviors associated with various “levels” of fanaticism—dilettante, dedicated, and devoted—and alluded to a fourth level outside the scope of his study—the dysfunctional level, involving antisocial activities and behaviors such as violence, hysteria, and stalking.
A review of the literature reveals inconsistencies and contradictions about the way consumer fans, fanatics, and fanaticism is presented. For example, while Redden and Steiner (2000: 326) characterized “fanatical consumers” as dysfunctional and extreme in their passion, commitment, thoughts, and behaviors, Thorne and Bruner (2006: 65) suggested that consumer fanaticism is “neither extreme nor aberrant.” While Chung et al. (2008) emphasized that fanaticism is “not necessarily detrimental” to consumers, and downplayed the potentially destructive nature of fanaticism, Thorne (2011) identified a “dysfunctional” (i.e. destructive) form of consumer fanaticism.
Outside the marketing discipline, such as in the context of history, religion, and politics (e.g. DeGraaff, 2010; Doran, 2002; Haynal et al., 1983; Hughes and Johnson, 2005; Taylor, 1866 , 1991), discussions and studies of fanaticism are similarly marred by contrasting perspectives. For example, while some studies view fanaticism as normal, ordinary, and respectable (Bird, 1999; Jindra, 1994), other research has portrayed it as obsessive, excessive, extremist, intolerant, and incoherent (Gautier, 2002; Perkinson, 2002). Although researchers have suggested that fanaticism communicates “the highest degrees of loyalty [and] devoted passion” (Greenbaum, 1999: 1), which may be positive in nature, much of the literature is dominated by negative portrayals of fanaticism, which imply that fanatics suffer a psychological disorder and require psychotherapy (Ellis, 1986; Firman and Gila, 2006; Slobodzien, n.d.).
Table 1 presents a list of definitions of fanaticism identified from our review of the literature, highlighting the key characteristics captured by each definition and summarizing the perspectives taken by its author(s). As evident in Table 1, most authors do not make a distinction between fans and fanatics—but as we demonstrate later, such a distinction is highly important—and they each take on different (positive, negative, or neutral) perspectives toward the phenomenon.
Summary of existing definitions and perspectives of fanatics and fanaticism and the characteristics they emphasize.
aFormal definitions explicitly presented by the author(s) for that specific term/concept (i.e. fan, fanatic, or fanaticism).
bDefinitions and perspectives taken from marketing and other business-related literatures or contexts (as opposed to history, politics, philosophy, psychology, religion, or sociology).
cIn the column Distinction between “fans” and “fanatics,” “Yes (1)” indicates that the author(s) made a clear and explicit distinction between fans and fanatics, “Yes (2)” indicates that a distinction was apparent, but not explicitly defined (e.g. fans are represented as the diminutive and less intense versions of fanatics), “No (1)” indicates that no explicit distinction between fans and fanatics were made by the author(s) because the context of the paper applies only to fanatics, and “No (2)” indicates that the terms fan and fanatic were used interchangeably by the author(s).
dIn the column Emphasis on the phenomenon of fanaticism, “+” indicates that the author(s) portrayed fanaticism in a positive light, “−” indicates fanaticism was portrayed in a negative light, and “0” indicates no specific emphasis or position was taken or apparent (i.e. appeared neutral), or both positive and negative perspectives were considered.
Positive perspectives on fanaticism
Table 1 shows that positive perspectives on fanaticism make up the minority of existing portrayals of the topic. These studies have suggested “fanatical” consumers demonstrate extreme loyalty and devotion by making ongoing investments of time, money, and emotional and physical resources to the object of fanaticism (Chung et al., 2008; Hunt et al., 1999; Thorne and Bruner, 2006), where the “object” refers to the focal consumption resource (e.g. a product, brand, ideology, or celebrity) and/or consumption activity (e.g. sky diving experience). For instance, some fanatics reportedly forgo food and other important purchases to spend that budget on the pursuit of their object of fanaticism (Redden and Steiner, 2000; Thorne, 2003). Others may acquire tattoos of their object of fanaticism as a display of their passion, commitment, or attachment (Pourazad and Pare, 2015). Fanatical consumers are said to be unique in that their interest in the object is self-sustaining (Pimentel and Reynolds, 2004). They voluntarily engage in behaviors beneficial to the object of fanaticism, such as spreading positive word of mouth and recruiting new customers and fans (Pimentel and Reynolds, 2004; Rozanski et al., 1999). They exhibit a deep love for the object and remain loyal, sometimes despite poor product or brand performances (Hugenberg, 2002; Hunt et al., 1999; Rifkin, 1999). Terms such as “loyalty,” “devotion,” “passion,” “zeal,” and “enthusiasm” are often used to describe fanaticism, with authors suggesting that such devotion, passion, and enthusiasm often attract new consumers and admirers to the product or brand (Belk, 2004; Pimentel and Reynolds, 2004; Rifkin, 1999).
Fanatical consumers could therefore be regarded as valuable customers who are attractive to marketers for a variety of reasons. For example, they often have extreme and passionate consumption drives, which imply heavy usage and purchase patterns (Hofman, 2000; Redden and Steiner, 2000). They are vocal about their passions and can act as opinion leaders to bring others’ attention to the object of fanaticism and attract new consumers on behalf of the company or creator (Rifkin, 1999). In supporting the object (i.e. product, brand, or consumption activity or experience), fanatics may join and actively participate in consumption communities to help and support fellow members and, more importantly, sustain each other’s interest in the object of fanaticism (Funk, 1998; Muñiz and O’Guinn, 2001). Their support and attachment are consistent, persistent, and resistant to any attempts to reduce it (James, 1997). These examples suggest that fanatical consumers are beneficial to marketers and should therefore be studied, understood, and cultivated (Rozanski et al., 1999).
Negative perspectives on fanaticism
Table 1 also highlights that much of the literature and existing definitions of fanaticism is dominated by negative emphases on the phenomenon, with terms such as “excessive,” “abnormal,” “irrational,” “violent,” and “harmful,” which have negative connotations and meanings attached to them, used in the definitions. The literature has shown a dark side to consumer fanaticism, describing fanatics as “intolerant” and “incoherent” (Redden and Steiner, 2000: 327, 332) as well as violent (Brimson, 2000: 1) and dysfunctional (Neale, 2010: 906). Fanatical consumers are considered intolerant when they are unaccepting and dismissive of any ideals, goals, or opinions (and the people who hold these ideals, goals, or opinions) that are inconsistent with their own (Redden and Steiner, 2000). Consumer fanatics are said to suffer from an incoherence among thoughts, behaviors, and goals that leads to “distorted thinking and unacceptable behavior that create the impression of gross abnormality, pathology, even insanity” (Redden and Steiner, 2000: 331). Consumer fanatics are also considered irrational (Mackellar, 2006: 207), displaying behavior that “violates social norms and conventions” (Thorne and Bruner, 2006: 53). Similarly, outside the marketing discipline, fanatics have also been described as “obsessive,” excessive, “extremist,” intolerant, and incoherent (Gautier, 2002; Perkinson, 2002).
A closer inspection of the definitions and perspectives in Table 1 reveals that, even for authors who may appear “neutral” in their studies of fanatics and fanaticism (e.g. in terms of placing no obvious positive nor negative emphasis on the phenomenon), many include terms that carry negative meanings and connotations. For example, Thorne and Bruner (2006: 53), who explicitly highlighted their use of the term fanaticism “in a neutral context,” defined a consumer fanatic as “A person with a[n] overwhelming liking or interest in a particular person, group, trend, artwork or idea that exhibits extreme behaviour viewed by others as dysfunctional and violating social convention.” By featuring terms like dysfunctional and expressions such as “violating social convention,” negative meanings attached to these terms are most likely also automatically transferred to the phenomenon of fanaticism (despite the author/s’ efforts to appear neutral).
The paradoxical nature of fanaticism
The phenomenon of fanaticism appears to be paradoxical, combining contradictory qualities and features. For example, Doran (2002: 178) defined fanaticism as “Single-minded commitment…zealotry…loyalty…willingness to martyr themselves…[and act on their fanaticism] without weighing the consequences of his actions in a fully rational manner,” while Neale (2010: 906) defined fanaticism as “Closed-mindedness or a rigidity in humans that does not allow for changed conditions. A fanatic is obsessed, devoted and loyal, regardless of whether this obsession is dysfunctional.” Positive qualities such as loyalty and devotion feature in both these definitions as well as negative qualities such as “irrationality,” “obsession,” and “dysfunction.” Fanaticism, therefore appears to be paradoxical, as it at once features both positive and negative qualities and divides literature into polarizing sides. Furthermore, due to the embedded self-contradiction, logical conclusions about the nature and conditions of fanaticism are hence rather difficult to be made, if not impossible, at this state of the literature. In order to advance the discipline in a meaningful way and have a solid foundation for future research that can investigate and make sense of the phenomenon, it is pertinent that we seek clarity to this topic and resolve this paradox and confusion.
The paradoxical nature of consumer fanaticism is also apparent in the previous example of Thorne and Bruner’s (2006) definition, where the intense “liking or interest” in a product or brand may be considered positive (at least from the marketer’s perspective, and arguably also positive from the consumer’s perspective as they derive much enjoyment from engaging with something that they like intensely, or have an intense interest in) but at the same time negative as it is to the extent of being dysfunctional (i.e. destructive) and “violating social norms and conventions.” The inconsistent, contrasting, and contradicting qualities and features of fanaticism that previous authors have described create confusion, where its complex nature and defining characteristics remain unclear or even illogical.
Lack of distinction between fans and fanatics
The lack of distinction between fans and fanatics or the inconsistent and contradicting use of the terms by many authors has further contributed toward the confusion that exists in the study of fanaticism. For example, as Table 1 shows, with the exception of only two studies—Mackellar (2009) and Thorne and Bruner (2006)—that make a distinction between fans and fanatics, many others do not do so. In some studies, a distinction was apparent, although not explicit, where fans were represented as the diminutive and less intense versions of fanatics (DeSarbo and Madrigal, 2011; Mackellar, 2006; Neale, 2010; Passmore, 2003; Redden and Steiner, 2000; Reysen, 2006). In other studies, fan and fanatic were used interchangeably (Holbrook, 1987; Shuaib, 2002; Smith et al., 2007). This lack of distinction is problematic, as it creates further confusion and complication in the study of fans, fanatics, and fanaticism.
Bringing clarity toward the study of consumer fanaticism
Etymology of fanaticism
As with many terms in the English language, fanaticism has evolved in its meaning and connotations over time. It may therefore be useful to examine the roots and origins of the term as the first step to understanding and developing a conceptualization of consumer fanaticism.
The root word of fanaticism, fanatic, and fanatical is “fanum” or “temple” (i.e. “of or relating to a temple”). It is first used in the English language to refer to religious individuals whose behaviors were thought to have been inspired by god (Hughes and Johnson, 2005). Perhaps depending on one’s perspective on god (and religion), this may be thought of positively or negatively.
Fanaticism was later used to refer to individuals who go to extremes for their political or religious-motivated political cause, where terrorists and extremists (including suicide bombers) were labeled fanatics (e.g. in Bryan, 2005; Doran, 2002; Griffin, 2003; Nelan, 1995; Sprinzak, 2000). While “go(ing) to extremes” may not necessarily be negative, in this context, where fanatics and fanaticism is related to terrorism and extremist activities, these terms appear to take on mostly negative meanings and associations.
Over the years, the application of fanaticism is expanded to include contexts beyond politics and religion. For example, the Macquarie Concise Dictionary (2006: 426) defines fanaticism as: “Fanatical character, spirit or conduct,” where fanatical means: “(1) actuated or characterized by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm or zeal, especially in religious matters and (2) relating to or characteristic of a fanatic” and where fanatic is defined as: “1. a person who is extremely enthusiastic about or devoted to an activity, practice, etc.: a skiing fanatic; a health fanatic and 2. a person with an extreme and unreasoning enthusiasm or zeal, especially in religious matters.” As the application of fanaticism is expanded beyond religion and politics to include secular activities, the definitions of fanatic and fanaticism also expanded in meaning. While in relation to “religious matters,” the definitions include “unreasoning” as a descriptor (which implies “not guided by or based on good sense; illogical”) and therefore seems to carry negative connotations, such an association is not present in the definitions of the same terms when related to the secular domain. This suggests that fanaticism may be a “fluid” concept (Redden and Steiner, 2000), where the meanings and associations it carries are context dependent. Whether positive or negative meanings are associated with fanatic and fanaticism appears also to be dependent on the assessor or beholder of the fanatic, such as based on whether or not he or she agrees or sympathizes with the position of the fanatic and what he or she is “extremely enthusiastic about or devoted to.”
Rhetorical motivations behind the use of the fan, fanatic, and fanaticism labels
Recognizing various definitions throughout history, “rhetoric” commonly involves the effect-oriented choice of words, terms, or language to influence, inform, persuade, or motivate an audience in specific situations (McNally, 1970; Newman, 2001). It appears that the terms fan, fanatic, and fanaticism are equally used by authors or speakers for their persuasive effect. For example, the term fan rarely attracts the negative associations or connotations (except for the case of what Hunt et al., 1999 and Pimentel and Reynold, 2004 refer to as “dysfunctional fan”); rather, it is often used to simply highlight one’s enthusiasm and passion for a target object.
On the other hand, references to fanatic have been presented in both positive and negative lights. For example, a writer or speaker may label a person a fanatic and use it in a pejorative manner, in order to imply that the person’s behavior should be seen as irrational, uncontrolled (or uncontrollable), unusual, and perhaps untrustworthy. Fanatic can also be used as a derogatory label to ridicule and belittle individuals, their behaviors, and/or opinions that the author or speaker do not agree or sympathize with. For example, in a recent article in the media about a “Hello Kitty fanatic” (Kamouni, 2016), the writer appears to ridicule the Hello Kitty fanatic using descriptions such as “Hello Kitty fanatic freaks all of us out,” highlighting her “single” relationship status to imply that her passion over Hello Kitty may be the reason why she has yet to find a partner who may be accepting of this passion. Holbrook (1987: 144) noted: “We do not call jazz fanatics “connoisseurs.” Rather, we accuse them of pursuing their consumption activities with a level of passion grossly out of proportion to that experienced by other more temperate consumers of the same product category.” On the other hand, some consumers seem to embrace the fanatic label. Google searches of “I’m a Hello Kitty fanatic,” “I’m an Apple fanatic,” or “I’m a Harry Potter fanatic,” and so on return hundreds of web pages, where individuals label themselves fanatics of these brands. In such cases, the term fanatic seems to be utilized as a means to highlight or even proudly promote one’s passion, loyalty, commitment, dedication, and/or devotion to the object of fanaticism, qualities that are generally considered positive and even admirable.
A review of the existing definitions of fanaticism also revealed that most include qualities that require an assessor to make normative judgments in classifying or qualifying the fanatic. For example, definitions that feature qualifiers such as unreasoning (Macquarie Concise Dictionary) (i.e. not guided by or based on good sense), “unreasonable” (Bryan, 2005), irrational (Doran, 2002; Haynal et al., 1983; Lehmann, 1987; Mackellar, 2006), or excessive (Bryan, 2005; Haynal et al., 1983; Passmore, 2003; Taylor, 1991) require normative judgments made by the assessor or evaluator in terms of what is considered unreasonable, irrational, or excessive. We believe that in order to help move forward the study of consumer fanaticism, it is important that we develop a more neutral, unbiased way to qualify and categorize fanaticism that does not involve a positive or negative emphasis on the phenomenon, nor include terms that carry such connotations, as well as being free from the need to apply normative judgments.
Defining characteristics of consumer fanaticism
Despite a lack of consensus among perspectives on fanaticism, the literature review revealed consistent themes, qualities, and features that characterize the phenomenon. As presented in Table 1, qualities that are present in most definitions and perspectives of fanaticism include passion, enthusiasm, devotion, zeal, intensity, extremity, abnormality, dysfunctionality, deviance, excessiveness, and rigidity.
In order to make sense of these many qualities and features that have been used to describe fanaticism, we aimed to distill these qualities and features into two key meaningful attributes that encapsulate the phenomenon of consumer fanaticism. In distilling the qualities and features of fanaticism into meaningful categories, we keep in mind our aim of developing a conceptualization of consumer fanaticism (i.e. identifying the key characteristics) that are free from normative judgments (or which require the assessor to apply moral standards in the process of determining if an individual is a fanatic and/or fall under the study of fanaticism). We also keep in mind our aim of developing key defining characteristics that could help us illustrate the difference between fanaticism and other intense forms of consumer attachments to products or brands (refer to Figure 1). We therefore require and an effort was made to synthesize, simplify, and develop clearly distinctive defining characteristics that do not overlap with each other. The result are two distinctive characteristics: affective commitment, defined here as the voluntary and volitional conscious decision to keep the interest in the object of fanaticism alive (Pichler and Hemetsberger, 2007; Pimentel and Reynolds, 2004), and extraordinary pursuit, defined here as going beyond the ordinary, usual, or average levels (Taylor, 1991) in one’s pursuit of the object of fanaticism. While affective commitment reflects the internal (emotional/cognitive) component of fanaticism (i.e. consisting of strong feelings for the object of fanaticism, and therefore “affective” in nature, and a conscious decision to continue pursuing the object of fanaticism, which represents a “commitment” that is cognitive in nature), extraordinary pursuit represents the external (i.e. behavioral) component of fanaticism.
Distinguishing consumer fanaticism from other types of consumption.
Affective commitment
As Table 1 shows, fanaticism is often presented as a form of intense attachment to or involvement with a focal object. In particular, enthusiasm, passion, zeal, devotion, loyalty, and commitment feature most heavily among existing perspectives and definitions of fanatics and fanaticism (see Table 1). A review of the definitions of each of these terms in the Oxford and Webster dictionaries, revealed that the terms zeal, enthusiasm, devotion, and passion are often used interchangeably to define each other and are considered synonyms of each other—representing strong/intense feelings of enjoyment, excitement, and active interest. Similarly, the terms devotion, loyalty, and commitment are also often used to characterize fanaticism and considered synonyms that represent the quality of being dedicated, faithful, and allegiant. This led us to propose affective commitment as being at the core of consumer fanaticism that represents both the strong positive feelings the fanatic feel toward (the pursuit of) the object of fanaticism and their volitional decision to continue in the pursuit of the object.
Affective commitment, unlike “calculative commitment” or “normative commitment,” is based on a genuine liking of the target/object, rather than merely utilitarian (Pimentel and Reynolds, 2004). This is proposed as what distinguishes the fanatic from the addict who continues to pursue the object based on utilitarian (often physiological) reasons. Hirschman (1992: 155) defines consumer addiction as an extreme form of compulsive consumption, where the “denial of the harmful consequences of engaging in the behavior” and “repeated failure in attempts to control or modify the behavior” are at its core. The addict’s continued pursuit of the object is due to an inability or loss of self-control (i.e. failures in attempts to exert control over a behavior) rather than a voluntary and volitional (affective) commitment based on genuine positive feelings about the object as in the case of fanatics.
Extraordinary pursuit
The second proposed key defining characteristic of consumer fanaticism is extraordinary pursuit. This relates to the external, behavioral component of fanaticism. The literature shows that fanatics have a “tendency towards extremes” (Paskins, 2005: 7). This tendency toward extremes means that the fanatic is willing to make major sacrifices and significant lifestyle changes for the pursuit of the object of fanaticism. This is evident in the following example, as Manuel Cáceres Artesero (in Lowe, 2012: 1) described: I used to hitchhike to games…. I had no money, people rejected me. But I never gave up…. I lost everything for football: my family, my business, my money, the lot. But I would do it all over again tomorrow.
As Table 1 shows, fanaticism has often been described as behavior that is excessive (Taylor, 1991), dysfunctional (Hughes and Johnson, 2005), pathological (Ortiz et al., 2013), deviant (Haynal et al., 1983), and abnormal (Redden and Steiner, 2000). However, we suggest that defining fanaticism in these terms is problematic because inherent in these terms are negative meanings and associations that can lead to a quick dismissal of fanaticism as a disorder (Oz, 2012), thus potentially biasing researchers’ investigations of fanaticism. While the dominant approaches define and characterize fanaticism as excessive, dysfunctional, irrational, or abnormal, our proposal of consumer fanaticism as a form of extraordinary pursuit, where “extraordinary” represents going beyond the ordinary, usual, or average levels (Taylor, 1991) not only captures the intensity and extremity that characterize fanaticism but also eliminates the need for researchers to apply moral standards (such as the assessment of whether fanaticism demonstrated by an individual is positive or negative, or normal or crazed). Consideration of fanaticism as an extraordinary pursuit thus makes the process of identifying fanatics more neutral and less prone to bias. We also avoid proposing extreme as a qualifying characteristic of fanaticism, as extreme technically implies “the furthest end point” or “the highest degree,” which is arguably difficult to define or operationalize in most cases and therefore less useful as a screener.
Our proposal of extraordinary pursuit as a defining and qualifying characteristic of consumer fanaticism overcomes the issues described earlier while remaining consistent with existing perspectives that fans “are marginal phenomena. In positivistic and statistical terms…a fan is an outlier, a strong deviation from the norm” (Smith et al., 2007: 78). Whether an individual is a fanatic depends on whether his or her devotion to the object is out of proportion when compared to that of the average individual (Hill and Robinson, 1991; Holbrook, 1987). For example, comparison of a nationwide sample’s average time commitment to sports and outdoor recreation (3 hours a week for males and 1.9 hours a week for females) with the study sample’s average commitment (of approximately 15.72–20 hours a week) demonstrated that informants were fanatical because their commitment was 9 to 10 times greater than the nationwide sample average (Hill and Robinson, 1991). Such an approach may significantly reduce the subjectivity involved in identifying the fanatic.
Apple fanatics who are prepared to make lifestyle changes or wait overnight outside Apple stores for new product launches (Lyons, 2013; Pogačnik and Črnič, 2014; Rettner, 2010) can be considered extraordinary (i.e. beyond ordinary, average, or usual) in their pursuit of Apple products when compared to more temperate Apple consumers who are less (or not at all) prepared to make lifestyle changes nor spend significant amounts of time lining up to make their purchases. Sports fan(atic)s who “only plan my weekends around the games” and brought forward their wedding “because we had to get the wedding in before football season” (Pimentel and Reynolds, 2004: 17) also demonstrate extraordinary pursuit of their object of fanaticism, where they make (or have made) lifestyle changes for, and that prioritizes, the object of fanaticism.
Proposed definition of consumer fanaticism
An in-depth review, critique, and synthesis of the literature on fanaticism lead us to propose that consumer fanaticism should be defined as a consumer’s extraordinary pursuit of a consumption object (i.e. a product, brand, ideology, experience), driven by an affective commitment, where affective commitment is a voluntary and volitional conscious decision to pursue (continue pursuit of) the object of fanaticism, and extraordinary implies going beyond the ordinary, usual, or average levels (Taylor, 1991) in its pursuit.
Fanaticism and other intense forms of consumer attachments to products/brands
Figure 1 illustrates the differences between fanaticism and other forms of intense consumer attachments to products or brands based on the presence/absence or the level (i.e. high vs. low levels) of affective commitment and extraordinary pursuit. Common, everyday forms of consumption differ from fanaticism in that they do not involve extraordinary pursuit and usually involve low levels to no affective commitment. Brand love (Batra et al., 2012; Lastovicka and Sirianni, 2011) and devotion (Ortiz et al., 2013) are similar to fanaticism in that the brand lover or devotee is affectively committed (i.e. expresses high levels of affective commitment) to the consumptive object, but their pursuit of this object is not usually considered extraordinary (especially when compared to more dedicated consumers such as the fanatics or fanatical fans). We propose that this is also what separates fanatics from fans; in that while the “fan,” like the brand lover or consumer devotee, may be affectively committed, he or she does not exhibit extraordinary pursuit that the fanatic displays. As Hunt et al. (1999: 444, 446) explained, in the sports context: This primary difference between the devoted fan and the fanatical fan is manifested through the actual behavior toward the schema target or sports object. The fanatical fan engages in behavior that is beyond the normal devoted fan, yet the behavior is accepted by significant others (family, friends, and other fans) because it is considered supportive of the target sport, team, or player. The devoted fan may go to games. The fanatical fan will go to the game and paint their body the colors of the team, go in costume, or in some way exhibit behaviour different from the devoted fan…The devoted fan may buy memorabilia. The fanatical fan may construct shrines dedicated to the object of that fanaticism (a team, a player, etc.).
Typology of consumer fanaticism
A review and comparison of the existing perspectives of fanaticism (particularly the conflicting and contrasting ones) leads us to propose a fanaticism typology to capture the different types of fanaticism that are depicted in the literature (Table 2). Importantly, our typology highlights the socially situated nature of fanaticism, where an extraordinary devotion to an object may be considered positive by some but not by others—resulting in both positive and negative perspectives and portrayals of fanaticism.
Typology of consumer fanaticism.
The typology consists of two key dimensions: (1) the out-group’s perspective of the fanatic or his or her fanaticism and (2) the in-group’s perspective of the fanatic or his or her fanaticism. An in-group is a social group with which a person psychologically identifies as being a member, while an out-group is a social group with which an individual does not identify. In-group members share a commitment to the same focal object, albeit not necessarily to the same extent as the fanatic (i.e. in-group members psychologically identify with fans of the same reference object), whereas out-group members are anyone who does not belong to that specific in-group and include people who are not fans of the reference object. In-group members are likely to be part of the same consumption community or subculture and/or share a liking or appreciation of the focal object. Drawing on the in-group versus out-group perspectives of fanaticism, we propose four types of consumer fanaticism: destructive fanaticism, rewarding fanaticism, stigmatized fanaticism, and rogue fanaticism.
Destructive fanaticism
Destructive fanaticism evokes negative reactions from both in-group and out-group members. Examples of destructive fanaticism include violent hooliganism (Brimson, 2000), drug/alcohol/gambling fanaticism (more commonly and generally automatically [perhaps inappropriately] labeled as addiction; Burns et al., 1990; DePaulo et al., 1987), and other forms of undesirable compulsive consumption (Faber et al., 1987; Lehmann, 1987). Hooliganism involving disruptive and unlawful behaviors such as violence, rioting, bullying, and vandalism is frowned upon by both in-group members (e.g. other football fans) and out-group members (i.e. the general public including people who are not interested in football). Similarly, perpetuation of dysfunctional forms of consumption such as of alcohol, gambling, and drugs (particularly in countries where these are illegal), or the enthusiastic pursuit of these (even if not to the extent of being dysfunctional), is often perceived negatively by people who may only occasionally gamble or consume alcohol or drugs (i.e. in-group members) as well as by those who have no interest in these activities at all (i.e. out-group members).
Rewarding fanaticism
In contrast to destructive fanaticism, rewarding fanaticism evokes positive reactions from both in-group and out-group members. Examples of rewarding fanaticism presented in the marketing literature include die-hard sports fans (Bristow and Sebastian, 2001; Rifkin, 1999), Nutellamaniacs (Cova and Pace, 2006), Tom Petty fanatics (Schau and Muñiz, 2007), the modern Apple fanatic (Rettner, 2010) as well as fanatics of brands like Vespa, Playmobil, and Walt Disney whose lives these brands have helped “save” (Cova and Fuschillo, 2013). These forms of fanatical consumption provide rewarding benefits to the fanatic (Hill and Robinson, 1991; Pollay, 1987) and are understood and accepted by other fans. Out-group members also perceive this form of fanaticism positively, as they find the fanatic’s fanaticism either admirable (Bristow and Sebastian, 2001; Rifkin, 1999) or useful (e.g. in terms of the fanatic’s ability to provide assistance, expertise, or knowledge developed as a result of their fanaticism) (Muñiz and Schau, 2005).
Stigmatized fanaticism
Stigmatized fanaticism is a form of fanaticism viewed positively by in-group members and negatively by out-group members. Examples presented in the literature include fanatics of science fiction offerings such as Star Trek, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings (Cova and Pace, 2006; Jancovich and Lyons, 2003; Jenkins, 1992; Jindra, 1994; Kozinets, 2001), Apple Newton fanatics (Muñiz and Schau, 2005), and “hard-core” and “die-hard” fans of Elvis (Doss, 1999). Studies of these fanatics showed that while fanatics derive benefits from their fanatical pursuits and can find refuge among fellow fanatics within the fan community (i.e. in-group members), they are often misrepresented by others, especially in the media, as “nerdy” people who need to “get a life” (Jenkins, 1992; Kozinets, 2001).
Rogue fanaticism
The final quadrant of the typology proposes a form of fanaticism that is viewed positively by out-group members but negatively by in-group members. The rogue fanatic is an outlier in the fan community but somewhat unexpectedly receives the acceptance of out-group members and nonfans. Examples include the booing Loggionisti at Milan’s La Scala opera house (Carù et al., 2011a, 2011b) and Harley-Davidson’s Rich Urban Bikers and Weekend Warriors (Schouten and McAlexander, 1995). Like the modern Apple fanatic, who has lost the stigmatized image as Apple fanaticism has become increasingly socially accepted, Harley-Davidson fanatics are more acceptable even to out-group members, as Harley-Davidson motorbikes gain mainstream popularity. However, the original fans of Harley-Davidson motorbikes (i.e. in-group members) regard the Rich Urban Bikers and Weekend Warriors as fraudulent fans whose association with the brand betrays the original members’ intended image for the brand (e.g. the rebellious outlaw). Similarly, the Loggionisti—who boo and cheer singers and conductors—may be viewed as disruptive by other opera fans (i.e. in-group members) but may be perceived positively by some out-group members as experts who can help govern the quality of operas presented at La Scala. The rogue fanatic may once have been a key member of the fan community (i.e. “rewarding fanaticism”), but through changes in preferences of other group members or the dynamics of group membership and relationships may have lost his or her place in the fan community even while gaining the acceptance of the wider community. Such a transition indicates fanaticism as fluid concept (Redden and Steiner, 2000). Alternatively, the rogue fanatic can start off as an outlier who never belonged, despite psychological membership or personal identification with the fan group.
Discussion
The consumer fanaticism typology derived here provides a partial explanation for the present paradox and serves as a significant step in resolving this contradiction. However, the typology also reveals important complexities, interesting qualities, and key dynamics, which suggest that consumer fanaticism, in its various forms, deserves further exploration.
Researchers have applied fanaticism, fan, and fanatic to many contexts across multiple disciplines. The various conflicting perspectives of fanaticism and lack of consensus as to its defining properties and constituent elements reveal a need to revisit the phenomenon to bring conceptual clarity and establish a foundation for more advanced theorizing regarding consumer fanaticism.
This article has consolidated the conflicting perspectives by developing a reconceptualization of consumer fanaticism. We have identified the defining characteristics of the phenomenon, provided a neutral and unbiased definition of consumer fanaticism, and demonstrated its difference from other arguably similar consumption phenomena. The development of a neutral and unbiased definition of consumer fanaticism that does not require the assessment of whether an individual’s fanaticism is positive or negative or normal or crazed makes the process of identifying fanatics less subject to researcher bias. As a consequence, our conceptualization helps researchers remove the stigma often attached to the fanatic or fanaticism label, which may have prevented some individuals from speaking honestly or openly about their fanaticism (or to identify themselves as a fanatic in the first place). Removing this stigma can also help consumer informants speak more freely about their fanaticism, thereby allowing researchers to uncover a greater depth and breadth of information.
Our typology of consumer fanaticism, which is based on the notion of in-group versus out-group perspectives of the consumer fanatic, structures the various forms of fanaticism portrayed in the literature into four meaningful categories. This typology helps resolve a theoretical paradox stemming from the conflicting perspectives of consumer fanaticism in the literature. We advance theory by providing a conceptual framework to explain the different perspectives (positive vs. negative) taken by various studies, thus providing a much richer and more integrative theorizing. As a result, this research offers a basis for understanding and resolving the presently conflicting perspectives of consumer fanaticism.
Importantly, this article identifies fanaticism’s defining dimensions—affective commitment and extraordinary pursuit—and uses these to distinguish consumer fanaticism from other similar consumption constructs involving intense forms of consumer attachment to products and brands, such as brand love, devotion, and addiction. In doing so, it provides a robust foundation for future research on consumer fanaticism. By identifying the key characteristics of consumer fanaticism and using them to distinguish consumer fanaticism from other similar consumption constructs, this article carves out consumer fanaticism as a unique consumption phenomenon that differs from other well-established phenomena and that is still evolving, requiring research attention to develop a consensus and further advance understanding.
Finally, this article also contributes by outlining theoretical, managerial, and policy implications and by providing a future research agenda to advance knowledge and understanding of consumer fanaticism and related consumption constructs.
Implications for research
The model presented in this article, supported by evidence from prior literature, demonstrates that not all forms of consumer fanaticism are dysfunctional. Some forms of consumer fanaticism are regarded as rewarding and beneficial not only by the fanatic but also by others benefiting from the fanatic’s extraordinary interest, enthusiasm, expertise, and devotion to the focal object (Hill and Robinson, 1991).
Although prior studies of consumer fanaticism laid the foundation for current knowledge of the phenomenon, we urge researchers to reconsider prior work using the consumer fanaticism label and revisit papers claiming to have studied consumer fanaticism, such as the series of first papers on consumer fanaticism published in Advances in Consumer Research (e.g., DePaulo et al., 1987; Faber et al., 1987; Gridley, 1987; Holbrook, 1987; Lehmann, 1987; Pollay, 1987; Scammon, 1987). Indeed, researchers need to reconsider and reflect on whether studies represent genuine cases of fanaticism, especially in light of the updated conceptualization of consumer fanaticism presented in this article. For example, studies on drug and alcohol use involving a loss of self-control and consumption that is repeated despite harmful consequences and repeated attempts to cease such behaviors (e.g. DePaulo et al., 1987) may more appropriately be categorized as addiction rather than fanaticism. On the other hand, Thorne and Bruner’s (2006) study of consumer fanaticism involving fans recruited at fan convention venues may include consumers who are not necessarily fanatical, and therefore the findings of their study arguably have to be questioned with regard to their theoretical view and its implications of consumer fanaticism. We suggest a need for researchers, whenever they come across any materials that apply or use fans, fanatics, and fanaticism, to question the rhetorical motivation behind the authors’ use of these labels, and what the authors mean by these labels. Similarly, going forward theorizing would benefit from authors being upfront, clear, and explicit in their definition and application of these terms and labels in their own research.
Consumer fanaticism seems to sit on a “fine line between extreme levels of enthusiasm that is positive and fulfilling, versus the non-sustainable borderline-dysfunctional levels of enthusiasm that may turn into something darker or problematic” (Chung et al., 2008: 333). Indeed, future research on consumer fanaticism should empirically explore this fine line between the various forms of consumer fanaticism that lead to positive versus negative outcomes for the fanatic and others surrounding the fanatic (or affected by the fanatic’s actions). Further research should also investigate the boundaries separating the different types of consumer fanaticism (i.e. rewarding, destructive, stigmatized, or rogue), exploring the group dynamics that occur in the different types. Moreover, while fanaticism is commonly regarded as manifesting at an individual level, a collective phenomenon of fanaticism seems equally plausible. For example, football hooligans may develop collective fanaticism structures and dynamics (us vs. them) that merit exploration beyond the individual level.
While this article has focused on developing frameworks that help distinguish consumer fanaticism from other forms of consumption, as well as the different forms/types of consumer fanaticism (to reconcile the previously disparate literature), future research can investigate or focus more on the “fluidity” of the concept as indicated earlier. This may help researchers understand the different movements between quadrants within each of the two proposed frameworks. For example, it is possible to foresee that a consumer might switch from being in the rewarding fanaticism quadrant to “destructive fanaticism” such as “when love turns to hate” (due to company/brand/marketer wrongdoing) leading to revenge-seeking behavior (Grégoire et al., 2009: 18). A consumer whose level of fanaticism fluctuates (such as in terms of the level of affective commitment and/or the level of extraordinary pursuit) may move from fanaticism to “love” or devotion (e.g. with a drop in the level of extraordinary pursuit) or to “common/everyday consumption” (i.e. “ordinary” forms of consumption) (e.g. with a drop in both the levels of affective commitment and extraordinary pursuit). Alternatively, the consumer may move from fanaticism to “addiction” if their continued extraordinary pursuit of the target object is no longer driven by an affective commitment to the object (i.e. low in affective commitment) but an involuntary, inability to exert self-control. Research that explores the movement and the conditions that drive movement between these quadrants (e.g. How does it happen? Why does it happen? What can companies and policy makers do to retain rewarding fanaticism, or encourage consumers to remain in one category, or discourage destructive fanaticism, or move to another category? What can companies or policy makers do to facilitate rewarding fanaticism, or reduce destructive fanaticism?, etc.) will provide valuable insights to not only academic researchers but also marketing managers and policy makers.
Study of fanaticism opens up the possibility of shedding further light on the currently emerging phenomenon of value cocreation (e.g. Vargo and Lusch, 2008) and value codestruction (e.g. Echeverri and Skålén, 2011; Smith 2013). While value cocreation refers to interdependent resource integration efforts that result in mutual benefits, value codestruction relates to intentional or nonintentional behaviors that diminish value perceptions of the interacting parties. Clearly, fanatics can contribute to both improved and worsened experiences of other consumers. However, the interactional nature and impact of fanaticism have not yet been considered in value creation frameworks. Particularly, the dark side of fanaticism could help enrich the theoretical understanding of the notion of value codestruction and offer critical avenues for future theorizing in the context of service-dominant logic (Vargo and Lusch, 2008).
Redden and Steiner (2000: 322) wrote that the topic of consumer fanaticism “call[s] out for systematic, scholarly study if only we could find a consistent conceptual framework against which to measure their fanaticism or interpret their consumption behavior.” Future research will benefit from the development of a scale to measure consumer fanaticism based on the level of affective commitment and extraordinary pursuit a person exhibits. With such a scale, future studies can explore the antecedents and outcomes of consumer fanaticism, where findings can be used to inform marketers and policy makers in managing consumer fanaticism. For instance, potential antecedents to consumer fanaticism may include voids (Ashton, 2007; Klinger, 1977; Peele, 1988), socializing agents (Funk and James, 2001; Hill and Green, 2000; James, 1997), and hedonic drivers (Carroll and Ahuvia, 2006; Higie and Feick, 1989). For example, addiction (which is separated from fanaticism only by a very fine line) is said to be a means to fill a void (Peele, 1988) and may also be an antecedent to fanaticism. Socializing agents, such as family members, friends, or other people in one’s school, work, or social community socialize individuals into the liking of an object (e.g. Funk and James, 2001; Hill and Green, 2000; James, 1997) and may be the initial step that leads to increasingly intense and eventually fanatical levels of liking and enthusiastic devotion. Hedonic motives and experiences have been found to promote consumers’ love for a product or brand (Carroll and Ahuvia, 2006) and encourage enduring involvement in that product or brand (Higie and Feick, 1989), and therefore may also be investigated as potential drivers of a consumer’s love, enthusiastic devotion, and eventual fanaticism toward an object.
Prior studies can also provide insights into the potential outcomes of consumer fanaticism, especially those that relate to intense consumer attachments to products and brands. For example, evangelism and spreading positive word of mouth as an outcome of consumer devotion (Fournier, 1998; Pimentel and Reynolds, 2004) and loss of self-control as an outcome of consumer addiction (Hirschman, 1992) may be investigated as potential outcomes of consumer fanaticism.
The study of consumer fanaticism responds to calls for research to better understand consumers who “can become near-zealots on the basis of adoration and devotion and can be placed in self-sustaining social environments that reinforce their brand determination” (Oliver, 1999: 43). Exploration of the antecedents of consumer fanaticism will provide much sought after answers to questions about the transitioning mechanisms leading consumers to this state of “ultimate loyalty” (Oliver, 1999: 43), fanaticism (Hunt et al., 1999), and allegiance (Funk and James, 2001).
Implications for managers and policy makers
The four types of consumer fanaticism identified in this article have different managerial and policy implications. For example, marketers and policy makers will likely view the destructive fanatic as a liability that organizations may choose to avoid, in which case they may consider demarketing efforts to dampen dysfunctional fanatics’ intense devotion or divert it to other healthier areas (Hunt et al., 1999). Demarketing efforts might include banning these fans from attending fan conventions or meetings or from joining or participating in fan community activities (online or off-line) or withholding the fans’ access to product, brand, or consumption experiences. However, such organizational actions may require careful consideration of the individual circumstances and adherence to ethical (and legal) standards. On the other hand, the approach could prevent misbehaving fanatics from offending others further and encourage them to take stock of their misbehavior, steering them away from socially undesirable behaviors. Alternatively, companies may consider (and researchers could measure the impact of) incentivizing and/or rewarding “good behavior” such that their fanatical customers are encouraged to not display the dysfunctional or destructive side of fanaticism. The use of more positive and encouraging incentives rather than based on punishment may be trialed for their differences in effectiveness (or indeed, one may be more effective on certain “types” of fanatics, than the other). Policy makers can consider educational and intervention programs to teach consumers self-awareness, critical reflection, self-regulation, and exercise of self-control (Baumeister and Heatherton, 1996; Dittmar, 2008; Faber and Vohs, 2011; Hirschman, 1992).
In contrast, the loyalty and devotion of fanatics in the rewarding fanaticism category should be garnered and harnessed. For example, marketers might “leverage the feelings and the experiences of the fanatical fan not only by offering information outlets to the fanatical fan…but also [by offering] additional ways for the fanatical fan to express…devotion” such as through purchasing memorabilia (Hunt et al., 1999: 450). Internet fan pages, meet-and-greet fan gatherings, and insider publications especially for these hard-core fans may also be useful to help sustain and continually reinvigorate the fanatic’s intense enthusiastic devotion. Offering these positive experiences to the fanatical fan may increase the likelihood of converting less intensely devoted fans into more devoted (and eventually fanatical) fans (Hunt et al., 1999), especially as existing fanatics’ enthusiasm is said to often attract new customers and admirers (Belk, 2004; Pimentel and Reynolds, 2004; Rifkin, 1999).
Similarly, the loyalty and devotion of stigmatized fanatics are also important to marketers and should also be treasured. The marketer’s role in this case may be to help demarginalize the image of the stigmatized fanatic and correct the negative misperceptions of these stigmatized forms of fanaticism. These efforts help to convert stigmatized fanaticism into rewarding fanaticism that is appreciated not only by in-group members but also by out-group members.
Rogue fanaticism is viewed positively by out-group members (usually including the general public or the majority) but negatively by in-group members or fans of the same focal object, and therefore it may be worthwhile to dedicate marketing attention to rogue fanatics. However, efforts to understand and resolve the conflicts within the consumption community may be necessary so that in-group members no longer view these fanatics negatively but see them as a useful source of information and other resource sharing. Fan community leaders may consider intervention or counseling for fan members who are butting heads.
Closing thoughts
Our synthesis of the literature shows that research explicitly addressing the phenomenon of consumer fanaticism has been scant and reflects conflicting perspectives. While some studies suggest that consumer fanatics are incoherent and dysfunctional, other investigations suggest that consumer fanaticism is neither extreme nor aberrant. We therefore sought to contribute to the literature by providing an updated conceptualization of consumer fanaticism and a typology of consumer fanaticism that helps resolve the current paradox. We advance theorizing in this area by conceptually investigating the phenomenon of consumer fanaticism, discriminating it from existing approaches and perspectives and providing a coherent, sense-making framework to integrate previously disparate, irreconcilable, and paradoxical views on fanaticism in marketing. In doing so, we build the foundation for substantiated conceptual and empirical developments. We advance the theoretical status of the concept of consumer fanaticism via a typology that integrates the in-group versus out-group perspectives into the dialogue on consumer fanaticism so as to consolidate the contrasting perspectives. Our conceptualization of consumer fanaticism further provides a basis for the future operationalization of the phenomenon, which would enable an investigation of the drivers and outcomes of consumer fanaticism, considering different types, contexts, and conditions. Researchers could, for example, develop scales to capture the dimensions of consumer fanaticism and/or different types of fanaticism and investigate circumstances under which the respective fanaticism phenomenon is facilitated or hindered. From an academic perspective, this would help examine predictive models and further theorizing of fanaticism, while managers could benefit from the quantitative insights about effective targeting and the development or discouragement of specific fanatics or even fanatic segments.
This article also contributes by developing a model that discriminates between fanaticism and other related marketing concepts, providing theoretical clarity and an improved understanding of the phenomenon of consumer fanaticism and other similar concepts of intense consumer attachments to products, brands, and consumption experiences. Finally, we offer a substantive agenda for future research to expand understanding of this increasingly common and potentially problematic consumption phenomenon.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.