There is an exponential increase in events involving subvertising both online and in the real world. Though popular media are increasingly discussing the topic, there are gaps in the academic literature on subvertising, as it is very limited. The purpose of this study was therefore to close these gaps by investigating the conceptualization of subvertising, the motivation for engaging in subvertising, and the outcomes of it, both for subvertisers themselves and for those that are targeted.
The study was carried out using a qualitative inductive approach, in which grounded theory was used to obtain and interpret data. The data was gathered from secondary data, as news articles and YouTube videos were collected from popular media. A thematic narrative analysis was used to get an understanding of “what” rather than “how”, and to focus on the themes around which articles are told (Reissman, 2008). The data collected was coded according to Gioia’s methodology. This helped the authors generate categories and subcategories that were used to answer the research questions.
The findings of the study revealed that the conceptualization of subvertising can be explained by the definition, target, type, defense, and evolution. The motivation for engaging in subvertising can be explained by the environment, inclusion and diversity, capitalism, and social. Lastly, the public, government, and corporate helped explain the outcomes of subvertising. The intergenerational justice theory was used to support these findings, as it can be linked to the underlying reasons for subvertising.
The study presents five theoretical implications where the authors discuss how they are contributing to the literature on the topic, and consider five practical implications they are providing to subvertisers and other activists, corporations, governments, and the public in general.
This study is of great novelty because it is filling the gaps in the existing literature on subvertising because of its comprehensiveness that looks at the conceptualization, the motives, and outcomes. It provides a clear definition that separates subvertising from other similar concepts by specifying its boundary conditions, which have previously been vague
