Brock research suggests using online criticism to build brands

#SORRYNOTSORRY: BROCK RESEARCH SUGGESTS USING ONLINE CRITICISM TO BUILD BRANDS

By Cathy Majtenyi for consumers to speak up and voice their discontent. How should marketers respond? Take a social media firestorm. Intuitively, company officials cringe at the thought of their brand being subject to a barrage of online criticism, and do whatever they can to avoid such a situation.

But is online criticism always bad for a company? Definitely not, says Joachim Scholz, Assistant Professor of Marketing at the Goodman School of Business and Research Scholar with Brock’s Cool Climate Oenology and Viticulture Institute.

“There is a certain form of controversy online that companies can actually use to build their brand, to stand out, to create brand value for themselves and their customers,” Scholz said.

About 60 per cent of social media firestorms are sparked by what he calls a “morally-infused crisis.”

These are instances in which a company takes a moral position and is met with intense criticism online. The firestorm comes from customers, and even the general public, who disagree with the company’s portrayal of, or alignment with, a particular social issue.

A high-profile example is Nike’s 2018 advertisement ‘Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything. Just Do It’ in support of Colin Kaepernick, the NFL player who knelt during the American national anthem to protest racism and police brutality in the United States.

The ad sparked a huge debate across the U.S. and even saw a boycott of Nike products.

“Nike stood by its risky ad because they believed it was the right thing to do,” Scholz said. “They acted on their own values — even when facing initial backlash.”

Fast-forward to the Black Lives Matter protests of 2020, and one can see the long-lasting benefits companies can reap when they stand for something.

Research from Joachim Scholz, Assistant Professor of Marketing, International Business and Strategy, suggests not all

Social media has made it easier than ever

online criticism is bad for companies.

Nike’s recent advertisement supports the Black Lives Matter movement by claiming ‘For Once, Don’t Do It.’ The video goes on to say in white text on a black screen:

‘Don’t pretend there’s not a problem in America. Don’t turn your back on racism. Don’t accept innocent lives being taken from us. Don’t make any more excuses. Don’t think this doesn’t affect you. Don’t sit back and be silent. Don’t think you can’t be part of the change. Let’s all be part of the change.’

“Nike stayed true to their values despite getting caught up in a firestorm two years ago,” Scholz said. “As a result, their current ad comes across as sincere and authentic, rather than clueless or opportunistic.”

Whether they realize it or not, brands are often caught up in complex cultural tensions. In the heat of the moment, when the firestorm erupts, these tensions are not always easy to identify, which can make it difficult for a company to decide how to respond to criticism.

Complaints about the quality of a product are definitely concerning and need to be rectified immediately with a “public, sincere apology” along with measures such as recalling or relaunching the faulty product, Scholz said.

For morally infused firestorms, things are more complex. Scholz suggests marketers ask themselves a number of questions to decide whether they should take a stand or alter their course. These include: • What are the values we stand for? Is this who we are as a company? • Who are our customers? What are their values? • What is the general sentiment among the public regarding this particular moral issue? Are the voices of support or dissent coming from “fringe” groups or the mainstream? • What are our opponents’ perspectives?

Companies confident in the position they’ve taken on a particular social issue should “fan the flames of the firestorm,” Scholz said.

“Fighting back can be the best option, especially when criticism comes from groups that are opposed to the core values of the company and its customers.”

He gives the example of a U.K. fitness and nutrition company called Protein World, which ran an ad campaign called “Are you beach body ready?” featuring a thin, scantily clothed woman.

Critics charged that Protein World was perpetuating sexist stereotypes through their ads and, by extension, body-shaming people who were not athletic. Instead of apologizing, the company pursued a number of strategies to fight back, Scholz said.

One was to employ a tactic known as ‘cultural jujitsu’ where the force of someone’s argument is made to work against them, in the process effectively “re-framing” the opponent’s position.

“The company turned the criticism that they were body-shaming people who were not very athletic around and said to its critics, ‘Well, you’re fit-shaming our model if you say she cannot achieve that certain body form as she did through exercising and having a healthy diet,’ ” Scholz said.

Scholz urged companies to resist acting in panic when faced with criticism. He gives the example of the Hallmark Channel, which aired, then pulled, then re-aired a commercial showing a same-sex couple kissing.

“After flip-flopping back-and-forth between two morally-opposed camps, Hallmark Channel has won neither battle,” he said.