“Coke vs. Pepsi” | “Ronaldo vs. Messi” | “Android vs. Apple” | “Cash vs. Contactless”. For some reason, whenever there are two greats within the same space, we feel obliged to pick a side. I’m pretty sure you’ve had one of these debates before or a similar us vs. them comparison. If you don’t get passionate about it, you definitely know someone who does.

Why is that?

The three S theories:

1. Social comparison - a drive within individuals to gain accurate self-evaluations.
2. Social Identity - a self-concept derived from membership in a relevant social group.
3. Self-comparison - a perception of self-worth based on comparison between people we see as    either better or worse than us.

To break it down, think of the recent Tokyo Olympics. 33 sports, 46 disciplines, and 339 total medal events. While it’s unlikely you are aware of all the events and individual athletes, what will grab your attention is hearing that someone from your country has won a medal. 

Events like the Olympics are relevant because they awaken our feeling of belonging. Through competition, you can relate to an athlete you’ve never heard of before, simply because they are “one of your own”.

Rivalry increases brand loyalty



Brand loyalty works in a similar way. While rivalry divides, it equally unites those that believe in the same cause and has been used by brands to increase their popularity while deterring consumers from competitors. Brand loyalty refers to a consumer’s attachment or devotion to a brand (Aaker 1991). Hogg and Savolainen (1997) found consumers use brand choices to mark both their inclusion and exclusion from various lifestyles.

An Australian netnographic study addresses this by drawing on three S’s and brand culture theory among Ford and Holden (GM) communities in Australia. Findings indicated that rivalry between brand communities usually manifests itself in the form of humour, labels, and ridicule for the most part, but also tips over into malice and outright hostility on occasion. A biproduct of brand loyalty, are anti-brand communities which contribute to the emergence of a negative ‘doppelgänger brand’.

The Cash vs. Contactless debate

People rarely had any issues with cash before the introduction of contactless. As the newcomer, it is fair to say, the contactless community grew its loyalty by not only promoting its benefits but creating an anti-brand community and highlighting the negatives of cash. 

Anti-brand communities gradually create ‘a family of disparaging images and meanings about a brand that circulate throughout popular culture by a loosely organized network of consumers, anti-brand activists, bloggers, and opinion leaders in the news and entertainment media’ (Thompson et al., 2006).

We can see this more now with the increased emergence of cashless stores, ‘to promote a covid-safe environment’. Although this misconception has been debunked by the World Health Organization and other institutions, some establishments continue to go cashless because from an anti-brand perspective, anything that isn’t cashless is outdated, unsafe or inconvenient. 

The Honest Truth

Rivalry and the unwavering loyalty related to it, is a tactic that has been used by brands for a long while and will continue to divide us. The reality is contactless does have its benefits; the convenience and simplicity it brings has revolutionized payment. At the same time, cash is ever-reliable, universally acknowledged, and doesn’t depend on third parties, who charge for using their infrastructure.

Although one sometimes works better for you, sometimes it’s the other. The truth is, both work together, for different people, at different places, at different times; but with the same common goal. In the words of H.E Luccock, "No one can whistle a symphony. It takes a whole orchestra to play it."

Remember that next time you pick a side…