Juliana Moreira Batista, L. Barros, F. V. Peixoto, Delane Botelho
{"title":"讽刺还是武断:品牌行动主义背景下,品牌应该如何回应消费者在社交媒体上的不文明评论?","authors":"Juliana Moreira Batista, L. Barros, F. V. Peixoto, Delane Botelho","doi":"10.1177/10949968221075817","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Brands are increasingly embracing social activism and adopting positions on controversial issues, prompting some consumers to react by making uncivil comments on social media. How should brands reply to such incivility while maintaining their positions and protecting their reputations? Two common types of reply include either a sarcastic or an assertive tone, but the effects of these types of communication on consumers’ attitudes toward brands remain largely unexplored. Results from a series of five studies exploring different causes (LGBT+ phobia, sexism, and racial equity) show that consumers evaluate brands that reply using an assertive tone more favorably than those using a sarcastic tone, which can be partially explained by the perceived aggressiveness of sarcasm. Additionally, support for a brand's stance acts as a boundary condition on the effect the type of reply adopted by the brand has on consumer attitudes toward the brand. So, the more someone supports a brand's stance, the less their perception of aggressiveness will negatively influence their attitude to that brand. We discuss the implications of these findings for marketing theory and practice.","PeriodicalId":48260,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Interactive Marketing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Sarcastic or Assertive: How Should Brands Reply to Consumers’ Uncivil Comments on Social Media in the Context of Brand Activism?\",\"authors\":\"Juliana Moreira Batista, L. Barros, F. V. Peixoto, Delane Botelho\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10949968221075817\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Brands are increasingly embracing social activism and adopting positions on controversial issues, prompting some consumers to react by making uncivil comments on social media. How should brands reply to such incivility while maintaining their positions and protecting their reputations? Two common types of reply include either a sarcastic or an assertive tone, but the effects of these types of communication on consumers’ attitudes toward brands remain largely unexplored. Results from a series of five studies exploring different causes (LGBT+ phobia, sexism, and racial equity) show that consumers evaluate brands that reply using an assertive tone more favorably than those using a sarcastic tone, which can be partially explained by the perceived aggressiveness of sarcasm. Additionally, support for a brand's stance acts as a boundary condition on the effect the type of reply adopted by the brand has on consumer attitudes toward the brand. So, the more someone supports a brand's stance, the less their perception of aggressiveness will negatively influence their attitude to that brand. We discuss the implications of these findings for marketing theory and practice.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48260,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Interactive Marketing\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Interactive Marketing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10949968221075817\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Interactive Marketing","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10949968221075817","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Sarcastic or Assertive: How Should Brands Reply to Consumers’ Uncivil Comments on Social Media in the Context of Brand Activism?
Brands are increasingly embracing social activism and adopting positions on controversial issues, prompting some consumers to react by making uncivil comments on social media. How should brands reply to such incivility while maintaining their positions and protecting their reputations? Two common types of reply include either a sarcastic or an assertive tone, but the effects of these types of communication on consumers’ attitudes toward brands remain largely unexplored. Results from a series of five studies exploring different causes (LGBT+ phobia, sexism, and racial equity) show that consumers evaluate brands that reply using an assertive tone more favorably than those using a sarcastic tone, which can be partially explained by the perceived aggressiveness of sarcasm. Additionally, support for a brand's stance acts as a boundary condition on the effect the type of reply adopted by the brand has on consumer attitudes toward the brand. So, the more someone supports a brand's stance, the less their perception of aggressiveness will negatively influence their attitude to that brand. We discuss the implications of these findings for marketing theory and practice.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Interactive Marketing aims to explore and discuss issues in the dynamic field of interactive marketing, encompassing both online and offline topics related to analyzing, targeting, and serving individual customers. The journal seeks to publish innovative, high-quality research that presents original results, methodologies, theories, and applications in interactive marketing. Manuscripts should address current or emerging managerial challenges and have the potential to influence both practice and theory in the field. The journal welcomes conceptually rigorous approaches of any type and does not favor or exclude specific methodologies.