Are Brand Haters as Good for Businesses as Brand Advocates?

Posted on April 1, 2012 | 1 comment

I’m quite confident that most people’s knee-jerk reaction to the above question is an astonished, “No, of course not!“, though personal experience and others’ anecdotes have convinced me otherwise.

Considering the fact that buyer behaviour is influenced by social factors – i.e. the people we surround ourselves with – it would definitely appear to make the most sense that brand advocates who are also opinion leaders in social circles would help businesses more. With the emergence of online social networks, positive social media influence has become increasingly important for businesses seeking to maintain a good image for its brand(s). However, while brand ambassadors may introduce and encourage supporting a brand, I think “brand haters” can also be extremely useful for businesses.

Let’s start with a cliché: “There is a thin line between love and hate.” Science has shown this to be true, so why wouldn’t it apply to business? Extreme haters are not impossible to convert – and there are many stories of brand haters becoming passionate brand lovers that can be found online.

An example of a brand hater’s website. The internet – and social networks in particular – have given haters a much louder voice than they previously had.

Haters can also point out valid problems with the brand’s products/services that a business can learn from and go on to improve. A good business – like any rational human being – can cherry-pick useful blurbs of information and critique from haters’ rants and ignore the more emotionally-charged parts (that aren’t particularly useful for anyone). Haters don’t have to be a form of destructive criticism if businesses don’t let them.

In the end, each hater is just a person, and every person is a potential customer. Understanding customers and their buying behaviour is one extremely important (and arguably necessary) aspect in creating customer satisfaction, so it is not farfetched to say that understanding a lack of buying behaviour is important, too. Thankfully, there are more and more businesses that aren’t  afraid of haters, and more companies are actively encouraging customers to complain. Perhaps the act of encouraging criticism in and of itself helps to quell the appearance of haters?

Perhaps this is the attitude businesses should take towards those customers who are not so keen on their brand(s).

Whatever the case, I would say that it’s inadvisable to ignore the haters, who can be actually be useful to the business. Haters make up the social environment for other customers, and social factors are one of the most important groups that influence buyer behaviour. Not only can they point out potential problems, but they can also be converted into brand ambassadors, who may even be more passionate than current loyalists.

(As for myself: For years I was an Apple hater, following the lead of my techie brother. Seeing as I am typing this on a MacBook, to which my iPod is connected, and I am chatting with my brother who is using his iPad, it’s quite clear that something has changed. We are perfect examples of former brand-haters turned big-time brand ambassadors.)

This is the “freelance” blog post component of the assignment. See here for blog post commenting on an external marketing blog, and see here and here for blog responses to my amazing classmates’ posts.

1 Comment

Tagged , , ,

Re: Helping kids in need – One pair at a time

Posted on March 11, 2012 | 1 comment

This blog post was written in response to Diou Cao’s blog post on January 12th, titled “Helping kids in need – One pair at a time“.

Awareness of global issues has been increasing in North America – and, of course, in other developed nations all over the world – for years, and gradually businesses have picked up on this trend and responded to it accordingly. Companies like Starbucks (with their reusable coffee cups that can be purchased in-store) and FedEx (with their large fleet of hybrid vehicles for ground delivery) are tapping into the “go-green” trend, often with great success. TOMS, however, goes above and beyond the simple trend towards environmentalism and tackles an issue that many corporations don’t know how to approach — the problem of poverty in underdeveloped countries.

TOMS is a perfect example of a company that has analysed the current marketing environment and worked to respond appropriately and successfully position itself accordingly. Its cause-related marketing strategy has worked incredibly well, arguably not because their shoes are groundbreaking in terms of style, but because they connect with the desire of many consumers to “do good” in any way possible. Many people know about poverty in certain countries, but don’t know what to do about such issues. TOMS essentially gives them a way to help, and makes it easier to make the decision to buy a pair of shoes (and consequently get a pair for a needy child) by rewarding consumers for their benevolence with their own pair of shoes – a win-win situation. I would certainly agree with Diou Cao that this widens their target market from people who already like the style, to people who just like the meaning behind the shoes.

It may be a better idea for TOMS to work "with" the people it wants to help, rather than doing the work for them.

Although highly successful for the company, some consumers have criticised the marketing strategy for doing harm as well as good. Others have been quick to point out that TOMS is putting shoemakers of these impoverished localities out of business – likely an unintended side-effect, but a side-effect nevertheless. TOMS may be well-known for its “not-for-profit” mission of putting shoes on the feet of needy children, but it’s still a “for-profit” company at its core. A better way to ensure long-term success might be to look for ways to support the communities it wants to help – e.g., by employing local shoemakers strictly in the areas it’s giving to, to create jobs and boost skill levels a bit. This would help authenticate the TOMS mission of “do good” and really drive the “change [it] wants to see in the world.”

1 Comment

Tagged , ,

Re: Out with the Old, In with the New

Posted on February 5, 2012 | 1 comment

This blog post was written in response to Rochelle van der Linde’s blog post on January 16th, titled “Out with the Old, In with the New: A Shift from Traditional Marketing to Contemporary Social Marketing“.

With the rapid development of the Internet and the consequent trends acting as hugely influential technological trends affecting not only what people consume but also how they consume it, I would agree with Rochelle that recent years have seen a rather quick shift from traditional media-based marketing (like ads on billboards, TV, the radio, etc.) to online marketing – specifically on social networks.

It is highly unusual for any major business to not have an online presence these days, and as Rochelle points out many of these companies choose to involve themselves in social networks where consumers have the choice of being marketed to (e.g. by “following” or “liking” a brand/product/business on Facebook) or not. In addition to the benefit of having a much wider audience, as Rochelle mentioned, businesses now have an easier way to gather more research data – faster, cheaper, and more honest than ever before. As one marketer is quoted in our marketing textbook: rather than carrying out slow, costly surveys, a business can “use Twitter to get the fastest, most honest research any company ever heard […] and it doesn’t cost a cent.”

Social media and social networking has changed the face of online advertising, transforming the concept of marketing from being intrusive and "in your face" to something that is an "offer" and invitation for consumers to join in and be heard.

Tapping into social media not only makes it easier for companies to receive direct feedback from consumers, it also makes it much easier to predict trends. Privacy issues will likely continue to be a problem in years to come, but for the moment consumer data (from data mining or tracking recommendation agent data) is easily obtainable and potentially as useful as direct, online customer feedback.

Rochelle points out that greater efficiency, convenience, and a larger target market are all reasons for the shift to social marketing – and obviously I agree. The only point I might argue is that some large companies, such as Nike, are starting to realise (or have already realised) that building a social networking presence has its own challenges, and either instead or additionally created official online community websites specifically for their brand to eliminate dependence on an external host (e.g. Facebook, Twitter) and recapture some control in managing customer relationships.

Nike makes things easy for consumers by offering an online portal for them to track and share their progress officially (e.g. versus posting "6 miles in 36 minutes!" on Facebook) and forums where customers can discuss which shoes they think work best for different types of running styles (e.g. treadmill runner, trail blazer, cement pounder).

Either way, the one thing that is clear is that online marketing, whether through social media or otherwise, is here to stay, and will only become more prominent in the years to come – for sure.

1 Comment

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , ,

Advertising Directed at Children: An Ethical Dilemma?

Posted on January 15, 2012 | 1 comment

One basic concept in microeconomics courses concerning consumers explains how larger population means greater consumer demand, naturally. As population increases, so does demand, in direct proportions – supposedly. Hearing that, I wondered: are newborns, then, consumers from birth? Of course. They’re consuming… well, diapers, babyfood, and plushies for the most part. Are they a part of a business’s target market when advertising, too?

Maybe not as babies, but as children they are. One blog post on adliterate, a marketing blog, outlines the age-old argument: there is the pro-advertising-to-children side that attests advertising is ethical (it helps the business survive/make profit!), and the anti side that argues advertising takes advantage of a child’s innocence and naïveté about commercialism.

Who’s right? It’s hard to say – a given due to the debate’s subjectivity. It’s easy to see how a child would be considered a “mini-consumer”, but given how even psychologists argue that advertising and media exposure in general can have a large impact on such an influential crowd, it’s clear that some regulation is necessary. Although the consumer in me would demand that corporations not target children (after all, ads do horrible things like “perpetuate hateful stereotypes” and encourage theft, discrimination, and other things, right?!), the rational, pro-capitalist side knows that totally abolishing child-targeted advertising is a bit ridiculous. In the first place, advertising (in my opinion) is simply letting people know about previously unknown products. (Do the advertisements create unnecessary “wants” or “needs”? That is an entirely different matter.) Also, advertising in a way that encourages resistance to advertising, as is mentioned on adliterate, is counterproductive since it would only hurt businesses. Without businesses, how is the world to go round? Who’s going to fulfill  consumer needs?

In some ways it seems the jury will forever be out on whether it’s ethical/unethical to advertise to children, since the “appropriate age” at which businesses can start marketing to children has yet to be decided (and probably never will). At the very least, there seems to be a growing recent trend towards “ethical marketing”, with additional ‘responsible advertising to children’ websites and guidelines popping up everywhere (e.g. those posted by the EACA). Increased honesty in ads is, as far as I can see, already a huge step towards quieting the ongoing debate about the ethics of advertising to children – and advertising in general.

(Even without considering how dishonest or misleading ads (e.g. those cereal brands or cereal bar brands that advertise to children about their respective ‘amazing’ health benefits) are unethical when aimed specifically at children, I’d say misleading advertising is unethical when aimed at the general public, too! I know I won’t be swayed by fast food ads any time soon…)

 

1 Comment

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , ,