A Multiple Case Study of Ideological Marketing

Abstract

The purpose of this research article to develop a theoretical framework for the organizational process of managing ideological conflict. It focuses on examining internal decision-making processes, communication strategies for handling polarization, and relationship-management approaches for ideologically opposed consumers. A qualitative multi-case study design was employed, selecting five brands from three industries with clear histories of engaging in brand activism. Data were collected using methodological triangulation. The findings indicate that: Proactive decision-making processes are not driven by marketing returns, but rather follow a top-down structure grounded in the organization’s “core values” or the “founder’s DNA.” These processes prioritize “authenticity risk” over market-related risks. Defensive communication strategies do not follow traditional crisis-communication theories. Instead, organizations employ “segmented polarization-management strategies,” which include reinforcing and amplifying messages to supporters, while simultaneously adopting non-confrontation and “value reframing” toward opposing groups. In long-term relationship management, organizations do not attempt to restore relationships with consumers who hold strong ideological opposition. Rather, they adopt strategic loss acceptance to preserve the deep loyalty of their core supporters. These findings lead to the development of a process-based conceptual framework for managing ideological conflict, which challenges traditional crisis-communication and customer-relationship-management theories by demonstrating that strategic loss acceptance is a crucial mechanism for safeguarding brand authenticity. The proposed process-based framework for ideological-conflict management