Category Archives: COMM 296

Are Brand Haters as Good for Businesses as Brand Advocates?

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.

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

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.”