{{Short description|Assuming the online identity of another entity}} '''Brandjacking''' is an activity whereby someone acquires or otherwise assumes the online identity of another entity for the purposes of acquiring that person's or business's brand equity. The term combines the notions of 'branding' and 'hijacking', and has been used since at least 2007 when it appeared in ''Business Week'' referencing the term used in a publication by the firm MarkMonitor (MarkMonitor and its PR firm, the Zeno Group, coined the phrase; MarkMonitor registered "BrandJacking Index" as a trademark, but not the term "brandjacking" on its own).<ref>{{cite web | title = 'Brandjacking' on the Web | publisher = Arik Hesseldahl | date = 2007-05-01 | url = http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/may2007/tc20070501_555089.htm | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20070504041519/http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/may2007/tc20070501_555089.htm | url-status = dead | archive-date = May 4, 2007 | accessdate = 2010-07-12 }}</ref> The tactic is often associated with use of individual and corporate identities on social media or Web 2.0 sites, as described in Quentin Langley's 2014 book ''Brandjack'',<ref name=Brandjack>{{cite book|last1=Langley|first1=Quentin|title=Brandjack|date=2014|publisher=Palgrave Macmillan|location=Basingstoke|isbn=9781137375353}}<!--|accessdate=16 February 2015--></ref> and may be used alongside more conventional (offline) campaign activities.
While similar to cybersquatting, identity theft or phishing in nature and in possible tactics, brandjacking is usually particular to a politician, celebrity or business and more indirect in its nature. A brandjacker may attempt to use the reputation of its target for selfish reasons or seek to damage the reputation of its target for hostile,<ref name=Waddington>{{cite book|last=Waddington|first=Steven|title=Brand Anarchy: Managing corporate reputation|year=2012|publisher=Bloomsbury|isbn=9781408157220|page=94}} Waddington, quoting Quentin Langley's ''[http://www.brandjacknews.com Brandjack News]'', describes brandjacking as "the ability for an individual to criticise and publicly shame a company ... [placing] the brand in a hostile relationship with the consumer."</ref> malicious or for political or campaigning reasons. These reasons may not be directly financial, but the effects on the original brand-holder may often include financial loss - for example, negative publicity may result in the termination of a celebrity's sponsorship deal, or, for a corporation, potentially lead to lost sales or a reduced share price.
==Brandjacking examples== * Coca-Cola - in 2013, a commercial, "The Bitter Taste of Sugar", for Oxfam (Oxfam Novib Netherlands) parodied a Coca-Cola Zero commercial, drawing attention to its unsustainable business practices.<ref>[https://www.oxfamnovib.nl/De-bittere-nasmaak-van-suiker.html De bittere nasmaak van suiker] Accessed: 7 April 2014.</ref> * Starbucks - in 2006, a YouTube-hosted video presented a spoof advert for a Starbucks Frappuccino underlining the contrast between consumption and poverty. * Nestle - in March 2010, Greenpeace campaigners used a YouTube video that parodied Nestlé's KitKat 'Take a Break' advertising, to draw attention to the multinational's use of palm oil from unsustainable operations in Indonesia and the consequent impact on Orangutan habitats.<ref>Dunlevy, Gabrielle (18 March 2010), Gory Greenpeace KitKat video goes viral, ''The Daily Telegraph'' - http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/gory-greenpeace-kitkat-video-goes-viral/story-e6freuy9-1225842479332</ref> Protesters outside Nestlé's UK head office in Croydon carried signs with the words 'Give me a break' and 'Killer' printed in the distinctive red and white Gill Sans.<ref name=metro>Nestlé faces KitKat boycott over links to 'palm oil killing orangutans' claim (18 March 2010), ''Metro'' - http://www.metro.co.uk/news/818000-nestle-faces-kitkat-boycott-over-links-to-palm-oil-killing-orangutans-claim</ref> * ExxonMobil - in 2008, a Twitter account (@ExxonMobilCorp) was set up purporting to be the views of an official spokesperson for the oil company, only for it later to be exposed as fake.<ref>Fowler, Tom (2008), Exxon Mobil says it's not behind 'its' Twitter account, ''Houston Chronicle'' - http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/chronicle/5920513.html</ref> * Also on Twitter, @BPglobalPR is not an official voice for BP, but a satirical account that has grown in popularity during the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, attracting more followers than the official BP Twitter account.<ref>BP’s Global PR vs. BPGlobalPR (2010) ''Newsweek'' - https://www.newsweek.com/2010/06/04/bp-s-global-pr-vs-bpglobalpr.html</ref> * Politicians - fake Facebook pages were created for US President Barack Obama<ref>Tapper, Jake (2008), Barack Obama's Fake Facebook Page (Courtesy of the RNC), ABC News - http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/07/barack-obamas-f.html</ref> and US Republican governor Sarah Palin<ref>Sarah Palin's Facebook Alter-Ego Gets Found Out (29 August 2009) ''Wall Street Journal'' - https://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2009/08/13/sarah-palins-facebook-alter-ego-gets-found-out/</ref> (among other politicians). Major corporations have also been the subject of brandjack-based protests on Facebook. * Fake blogs - may be considered a form of brandjacking if created by a critic or opponent of the person or brand supposed to be behind the blog. * Affiliate brand bidding - This is a tactic used by some affiliate marketers. Some consider such tactics unethical or Black Hat. The method is to bid on keywords related to the marketer's site / product, but to do so seemingly as a competitor.<ref>Weiman, Lori (June 23, 2010), Watch Out For These Unsavory Affiliate Tactics, Search Engine Land - http://searchengineland.com/watch-out-for-these-unsavory-affiliate-tactics-44692</ref><ref>{{Citation| last1 = Rosso| first1 = Mark| last2 = Jansen| first2 = Bernard (Jim)| title = Brand Names as Keywords in Sponsored Search Advertising| url = https://aisel.aisnet.org/cais/vol27/iss1/6| journal = Communications of the Association for Information Systems| volume = 27| issue = 1| pages= 81–98| date = August 2010 | doi = 10.17705/1CAIS.02706| doi-access = free}}</ref> *Colleges and universities - In 2008, college guidebook company College Prowler created hundreds of Facebook groups purporting to consist of actual incoming first-year students of various universities in order to surreptitiously gather their personal data and promote the business.<ref>[http://chronicle.com/article/Company-Created/42157/ Company Created Official-Looking 'Class of 2013' Facebook Groups for Hundreds of Colleges] - [http://chronicle.com Chronicle of Higher Education]</ref> *In June 2011, Greenpeace activists launched a campaign against Mattel's use of a packaging supplier, APP, said to be desecrating Indonesian rainforests, using images of Mattel dolls Barbie and Ken.<ref name=Barbie>{{cite news|last1=Whitcomb|first1=Dan|title="Ken" doll protesters arrested at Mattel headquarters|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mattel-protest-idUSTRE75667S20110607|accessdate=23 February 2015|work=Reuters|date=7 June 2011|archive-date=23 February 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150223175855/http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/07/us-mattel-protest-idUSTRE75667S20110607|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name=Brandchannel>{{cite news|last1=Waltzer|first1=Michael|title=Greenpeace Breaks Up Barbie and Ken to Save the Rainforest|url=http://www.brandchannel.com/home/post/Greenpeace-Mattel-Activism.aspx|accessdate=23 February 2015|work=Brandchannel|date=10 June 2011|url-status=dead|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150224180744/http://www.brandchannel.com/home/post/Greenpeace-Mattel-Activism.aspx|archivedate=24 February 2015}}</ref> A Greenpeace video showed Ken dumping Barbie ("I don't date girls who are into deforestation"), the group created a mock Twitter feud and a stunt involving Barbie in a pink bulldozer, and unfurled a banner on the wall of Mattel’s Los Angeles headquarters;<ref>Langley (2014), pp.183-185</ref> some 500,000 people sent protest emails to Mattel. In October 2011, Mattel announced a global policy to keep rainforest destruction out of its supply chains.<ref name=Ethical>{{cite news|title=Success. Mattel and Barbie stop toying with the rainforest|url=http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/latestnews/tabid/62/entryid/810/success-mattel-and-barbie-stop-toying-with-the-rainforest.aspx|accessdate=23 February 2015|work=Ethical Consumer|date=17 October 2011}}</ref> ''Brandjack'' author Quentin Langley praised Greenpeace for its integration of online (YouTube, Twitter) and offline (stunts, etc.).<ref>Langley (2014), p.185</ref> *In a 2023 action by the Barbie Liberation Organization, actress Daryl Hannah, posing as a spokesperson for Mattel introduced the collection of biodegradable dolls and announced in a short video<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASH_2DsdJUA&list=PLRL7rnahCMV1TIgfFv_Y_EKOFGuV4j8jg&index=1|title=Plastic Free with Daryl Hannah|date=August 1, 2023|via=YouTube}}</ref> that the company would stop using plastic by 2030.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Albeck-Ripka |first1=Livia |title=Barbie Hoax Targets Mattel and Fools Some News Outlets |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/01/business/media/barbie-hoax-plastic-mattel-daryl-hannah.html |date=Aug 1, 2023}}</ref> This was one of several videos<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLRL7rnahCMV1TIgfFv_Y_EKOFGuV4j8jg|title=EcoWarrior Barbie Hoax|website=YouTube}}</ref> produced by Yellow Dot Studios<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://yellowdotstudios.com/|title=Yellow Dot Studios ||date=September 16, 2024|website=Yellow Dot Studios}}</ref> as part of the BLO's campaign to leverage the publicity surrounding the launch of the ''Barbie'' film to raise concerns about the pervasive use of plastics.<ref name="mattelhoax">{{Cite news |date=2023-08-02 |title=A new "EcoWarrior" Barbie, supposedly from Mattel, drew headlines. It was a hoax. - CBS News |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/barbie-ecowarrior-hoax-mattel/ |access-date=2024-11-26 |language=en-US}}</ref> Tying in with the satirical campaign is a hoax website bearing heavy resemblance to the real Mattel corporate site, where they issued a fake press release for the fictitious biodegradable Barbie line.<ref name="mattelhoax1">{{Cite web |date=2023-08-03 |title=Mattel Denies Claim That All Barbies Will Be Compostable |url=https://futurism.com/the-byte/mattel-denies-claim-barbies-compostable |access-date=2024-11-26 |website=Futurism}}</ref>
== Brandjacking avoidance == Brandjacking avoidance may include: * Pre-emptive registration of brand names and sub-brands as screen names on social media sites. * Staying vigilant<ref>{{cite web | last = Frederick | first = Felman | title = The Cure for Social Media Brandjacking | publisher = E-Commerce News | date = 2009-05-04 | url = http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/66969.html?wlc=1268859644 | accessdate = 2010-03-17 }}</ref> * Use of social media and general media monitoring tools to seek evidence of infringement * Legal action against those seen as responsible for the infringement. However, action against the brandjackers and their supporters can actually draw attention to the problem (the Streisand effect). For example, following Greenpeace's KitKat campaign, Nestlé had the video removed from YouTube, but Greenpeace quickly re-posted it to video-sharing site Vimeo.com and highlighted the attempted censorship using Twitter and other social media.<ref name=metro /> Attempts by Nestlé to constrain user activity on its Facebook fan page further fanned the controversy.
== Ethics considerations == Brandjacking, which involves the unauthorized use or alteration of a company’s brand identity, is a subject of discussion in both academic and professional research due to its potential to influence public opinion. ''What is brandjacking? Origin, conceptualization and effects of perceived dimensions of truth, mockery and offensiveness'' defines brandjacking as a form of anti-commercial parody that changes the original meaning of an advertisement in order to criticize a company or draw attention to perceived concerns about the brand.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal |last=Thota |first=Sweta Chaturvedi |date=2021-02-17 |title=What is brandjacking? Origin, conceptualization and effects of perceived dimensions of truth, mockery and offensiveness |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02650487.2020.1766232 |journal=International Journal of Advertising |language=en |volume=40 |issue=2 |pages=292–310 |doi=10.1080/02650487.2020.1766232 |issn=0265-0487|url-access=subscription }}</ref>
One commonly cited concern includes deception. Some forms of brand hijacking, such as fake accounts, phishing, cybersquatting, and impersonation, may confuse consumers into believing they are interacting with the legitimate company. According to the study, ''Redefining brand hijacking from a non-collaborative brand co-creation perspective'' these practices have the potential to damage trust in both the targeted brand and the broader marketplace.<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal |last=Siano |first=Alfonso |last2=Confetto |first2=Maria Giovanna |last3=Vollero |first3=Agostino |last4=Covucci |first4=Claudia |date=2022-01-06 |title=Redefining brand hijacking from a non-collaborative brand co-creation perspective |url=http://www.emerald.com/jpbm/article/31/1/110-126/449328 |journal=Journal of Product & Brand Management |language=en |volume=31 |issue=1 |pages=110–126 |doi=10.1108/JPBM-03-2020-2780 |issn=1061-0421|doi-access=free }}</ref>
Another ethical issue discussed in research is reputational harm. Research in ''What is brandjacking? Origin, conceptualization and effects of perceived dimensions of truth, mockery and offensiveness'' found that when audiences perceived truthfulness or offensiveness in brandjacked content, attitudes toward the targeted brand became more negative, suggesting that brandjacking campaigns can influence public perceptions even when they are framed as parody or criticism.<ref name=":0" />
Research notes that not all brandjacking is motivated by fraud or personal gain. For instance, the article ''What is brandjacking? Origin, conceptualization and effects of perceived dimensions of truth, mockery and offensiveness'' discusses examples of brandjacking used by activist groups to criticize corporate environmental or social practices via altered advertisements, suggesting it can function as a tool of protest and accountability.<ref name=":0" />
The article ''Redefining brand hijacking from a non-collaborative brand co-creation perspective'' proposes that brand hijacking is an ethically complex phenomenon, neither entirely harmful nor entirely beneficial, noting that while certain types may involve deception and consumer confusion, others may represent protest, criticism, or stakeholder attempts to redefine brand meaning.<ref name=":1" />
== See also == * Culture jamming * Cybersquatting * Fake blog * Identity theft * Parody account * Phishing * Subvertising
==References== {{Reflist}}
==External links== * [https://www.zdnet.com/article/online-brand-jacking-increasing/ Online brand-jacking increasing], Zdnet.com
Category:Identity theft Category:Cybercrime