Researchers evaluate how brands respond to prejudiced comments on social media
In recent years, many brands have been embracing different social causes. In this brand activism, it is not uncommon for consumers to express dissatisfaction with the company for supporting a particular social cause. This dissatisfaction often leads to rude, coarse, and discourteous comments, to which many companies tend to respond assertively or sarcastically. Now, a study by Fundação Getulio Vargas investigated how consumers react to these responses, providing recommendations for companies to respond to these comments in a way that supports the cause without necessarily alienating consumers.
The study, funded by the São Paulo Research Foundation (Fapesp) and published in the Journal of Interactive Marketing, analyzed companies' responses to "uncivilized" comments from followers regarding the LGBT+ movement, the fight against sexism, and the fight against racism. The research found that responding assertively is the most appropriate way to handle this type of situation.
"Sarcastic responses, even if funny, convey aggressiveness. If the brand positions itself appropriately, which according to the participants of this research is the assertive way, the company will be better recognized by both supporters and non-supporters of the cause," introduced researcher Lucia Barros, one of the study's authors.
Barros, who is a professor at the São Paulo School of Business Administration (FGV EAESP), details the type of responses recommended for companies: "Our definition of assertive communication expresses thoughts, feelings, and beliefs directly, respectfully, and appropriately. This is the response that will be best received."
Assertive versus Sarcastic
Barros believes that by using an assertive approach, the brand does not fail to position itself, remains firm in the cause, but in a civilized manner, bringing teachings without aggressiveness. "Initially, we imagined that sarcastic responses would only alienate people who are not involved with the cause. But we were wrong; regardless of whether the individual is associated with a cause or not, they prefer to be responded to more assertively."
Barros also contextualizes that brand activism is an increasingly researched topic in the scientific community, and the choice of the term "uncivilized" came from other studies in this line. "It is a very common term in international literature that groups various meanings such as rude, coarse, and ill-mannered into one word."
The professor states that she has encountered numerous brands responding to uncivilized comments, many of which are ironic, harsh, and mocking, and this type of attitude can alienate all consumers, not just the more prejudiced ones who made uncivilized comments.
"When I encountered these comments, the first idea that came to mind was: what is the other way to respond to these positions? We identified another very common type of response, also widely used by companies, which is assertive."
Experimental Studies
The project conducted five experimental studies in which fictitious posts were created, based on real publications and brands, where a company made a post about the LGBT+ cause, feminism, or racial equality and, due to the post, received uncivilized comments from some users. The participant evaluated the uncivilized comment and the type of response from the company, one configured a sarcastic tone, while the other brought a more educational approach.
Barros emphasizes that each participant received only one post with a prejudiced comment and the corresponding reply from the company, then the individual had to rate from 0 to 7 how much they liked the brand's response. Through this survey, the researchers conducted a statistical analysis to identify an average rating of participants' responses.
Additionally, participants received the posts randomly, through a draw. According to the professor, the strategy was to simulate a daily situation as much as possible.
"Brands are posting daily on their accounts, and these companies will not offer two types of posts for the consumer to choose from. They will post a position, and the individual will react to it. Therefore, some participants evaluated only sarcastic comments and others only assertive ones. Regardless of whether they are involved with the cause or not," she explained.
The professor also highlights that after evaluating the responses, the participant answered a brief questionnaire about basic and demographic information. From these data, collected by the company Toluna, it was possible to measure who was involved with a particular cause and who was not.
"Basically, everyone preferred the more educated responses, which we call assertive in this research. However, tolerance for sarcastic comments increased according to the individual's level of involvement with the cause. Those who were more related to the cause did not mind this type of aggressive and ironic response much, unlike those who were not involved with the cause, who rejected this type of response much more, which in this research is classified as sarcastic," she detailed.
Fiction and Reality
The researcher highlights that the reason for using fictitious brands and not real ones was to prevent participants from letting their relationships with the brand speak louder than their position regarding the type of response. "If the individual encountered a known brand that they consume, it would be possible for them to react based on their liking for the brand and not the emotion caused by the comment and response."
However, Barros states that the fictitious brands, besides being based on real-life brands, simulated posts made by different sectors, such as the cosmetics industry, which has several companies in Brazil that embrace the LGBT+ cause.