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). 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, 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, 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 avoidance may include:
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. Attempts by Nestlé to constrain user activity on its Facebook fan page further fanned the controversy.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.