Domains of influence: exploring negative sentiment in social media
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-03-2018-1820 |
| Published date | 19 August 2019 |
| Date | 19 August 2019 |
| Pages | 684-699 |
| Author | Tony Cooper,Constantino Stavros,Angela R. Dobele |
| Subject Matter | Marketing |
Domains of influence: exploring negative
sentiment in social media
Tony Cooper, Constantino Stavros and Angela R. Dobele
Department of Economics, Finance and Marketing, College of Business, RMIT University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this study is to empirically examine the manner in which companies mitigate negative sentiment in socia l media and to
map the forces that may lead to pre-emptive strategies.
Design/methodology/approach –Case studies were drawn from the retail fashion industry using data collected from semi-structured, in-depth
interviews with practitioners and a netnographic examination of company artefacts and social media conversations.
Findings –The findings identify five principal domains of influence upon which the firms based their approach to social media negativity. The
authors suggest that these domains can be fundamentally categorised as either relational domains built on human exchanges or transformational
domains rooted in less tangible elements of corporate culture and operational practices that can have a significant impact upon a brand’s socially
mediated exchanges.
Practical implications –The research provides guidance based on empirical observation of effective strategies utilised by firms, emphasising robust
systems integration, a holistic management ethos, and leveraging of third-party alliances.
Originality/value –Bringing together disparate cross-disciplinary elements, the research contributes to knowledge by highlighting opportunities for
the development of a proactive rather than reactive approach to online brand negativity and deepens the understanding of applied brand
management techniques adopted to address negative social media encounters. The authors provide a series of contemporary and empirically
grounded recommendations for practitioners that offer substantive insights.
Keywords Brand communication, Social media, Negative brand sentiment
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Consumers are increasingly turning to social media to express
their opinions of brands (Tsimonis and Dimitriadis, 2014). As
consumer–brand interaction is no longer defined purely by
purchase or consumption(Quinton, 2013), companies are now
vulnerable to negative sentiment delivered via these channels,
regardless of whether or not they choose to participate in these
platforms. Such networks provide consumerswith the capacity
to elevate issues of discontent, often with profound
consequences for consumer–brand relationships and, by
extension, brand management. Consumer reactions range in
their manifestation from benign complaining or brand
switching behaviour through to extreme forms such as
organised anti-brand communities and collaborative attack
(Einwiller and Steilen, 2015;Hollenbeck and Zinkhan, 2010;
Rauschnabelet al.,2016).
The realignment of the conceptualisation of consumer
engagement generated by the advent of social media reflects a
loss of control for firms and the greater empowerment of
consumers (Quinton, 2013). These media offer aggrieved
customers speed, convenience, visibility, permanence, reach and
influence in expressing their admonishment of firms; and
companies ignore this feedback at their peril (Wolny and
Mueller, 2013). Understanding how firms cope with this
complex and dynamic network is increasingly important as
greater proportions of marketing communications budgets are
being shifted from mass media channels to networked-based
social media platforms (Morrison, 2015). Further, some
consumer-facing industries that were previously unable to access
broadcast media due to cost, scale or reach are adopting social
media as a principal conduit to meaningful consumer–brand
relationships based on interactive bidirectional engagement
(Burton and Espiner, 2017).
In opening their channels to consumer interaction,
organisations seeking deeper engagement via the infiltration of
their customers’social networks must weigh the risks and
rewards associated withsuch a strategy. Disputes are inevitable
in a context of increased interconnection between consumers
and brands (Aaker et al., 2004), as negative brand sentiment
expressed through social media has becomepart of the implicit
contract of networked cyber communications. However,
because one negative comment on social media can have
devastating consequences for brands, it is necessary that firms
develop and implement effective pre-emptive management
strategies –accepting that prevention is better than cure.
Brands in retail fashion –the context of this study –are
particularly vulnerable as the sector is fast-paced and highly
susceptible to social influence, such that product lifecycles are
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on
Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/1061-0421.htm
Journal of Product & Brand Management
28/5 (2019) 684–699
© Emerald Publishing Limited [ISSN 1061-0421]
[DOI 10.1108/JPBM-03-2018-1820]
Received 30 March 2018
Revised 4 September 2018
3 November 2018
Accepted 6 November 2018
684
short and product acceptance is inseparable from brand
success.
An examination of the extant literature on socially mediated
exchange reveals deficiencies requiring researcher attention.
First, little research relates specifically to company approaches
to addressing negative social media sentiment. What we know
has been improvised from disparate concepts originating in
multiple disciplines which frequently rely on seminal theory
that predates social media. We argue that such an approach
lacks nuance and is ill-fitting for a fast-moving retail context,
such as fashion. Second, the extant researchlargely approaches
negative brand sentiment post-eventum; in other words,
predominantlyfrom the point of view that backlash is a reaction
to a crisis or failure of some type. For example, the public
relations literature frequently outlines how to use social media
when dealing with a crisis or combatting activism (Coombs,
2014;Rauschnabelet al., 2016) as opposed to focussing on how
to pre-empt such events, and often borrows paradigms
developed for the offline environment.Little attention has been
paid to how firms mitigate negative brand sentiment, where
mitigation is defined as the alleviation of the impact of such
sentiment; and seldom is this thecentral focus of investigation.
Third, with few exceptions, the current literature examines
negative brand behaviours from the consumer perspective,
demonstrating little understanding of how firms should
respond. Hence, advice for practitioners regarding pre-emptive
strategies that support the management of brand negativity is
largely limited to speculative and adapted recommendations
drawn from offline environments published in industry-
orientated publications. One exception is the recent
examination by Stevens et al. (2018) of the management of
online consumer complaints, which, while valuable, only
explores one manifestation on a spectrum of consumer
negativity.
This research aims to examine, froma corporate perspective,
the various ways that companies mitigate negative sentimentin
social media to understand appropriate strategies for dealing
with potentially brand-damaging situations in these contexts.
Drawing on disparate cross-disciplinary concepts, the research
contributes to our knowledge by highlighting opportunities for
the development of a proactive rather thanreactive approach to
online brand negativity.This study deepens our understanding
of brand management techniques applied in response to
negative social media encounters, about which few empirical
insights currently exist, thus representing an important step
towards theory building.
Data are drawn from interviews with leading social media
practitioners from the retail fashion industry, a rich practice
environmentat the forefront of digital marketing,to understand
existing managerial systems. We combine the insights captured
from the interviews with a netnographic examination of
corporate artefacts to elicit a set of themes. The outcomes are
then comparedagainst managerial recommendationscontained
in the key extant literature to develop a number of empirically
grounded recommendations for practitioners based on
substantiveinsights.
The article proceeds as follows: next, we explore important
concepts relating to consumer negativitytowards brands with a
review of the key literature from a range of disciplines to
provide the conceptual context for the current study. The
research design is then outlined, including sample selection,
data collection and analysis methods. We then present the
findings from the research, including our empirically based
classification of management behavioursand a path to practice
for brand managers. We conclude the paper by considering
opportunities for future research to extend the exploration of
this nascent field.
Background and literature review
Research into negative brand sentiment
The construct used to describe the phenomenon of negativity
towards brands has been conceptualised within multiple
disciplines and from diverse perspectives, reflecting its pervasive
impact on multiple stakeholders including consumers, employees
and society more broadly. Table I summarises the primary
orientations explored in the extant literature. Noteworthy here is
the substantial overlap in some areas of investigation and the pre–
social media age of theory in some disciplines. The marketing
literature relating to brand negativity has a strong consumer focus
and may be summarised as generally taking a services perspective
examining complaining (Davidow, 2003;Stevens et al.,2018);a
consumer behaviour focus exploring customer rage, deviance
and retaliation (Champoux et al.,2012); or a brand management
view looking at anti-branding and brand hate (Zarantonello et al.,
2016). Research from the public relations domain is largely
dedicated to reputation management, crisis management , issues
management and corporate communications (Coombs, 2014).
Academic researchers from the fields of organisational behaviour,
business ethics, sociology and social psychology also offer
important contributions to our understa nding of the issues
around negative brand sentiment (Fullerton and Punj,2004).
Corporate transgressions that lead to a negative brand
sentiment cover a spectrumof improprieties and manifest in an
assortment of consumerbehaviours which vary in their severity.
The services marketing literature is prominent in this research
domain as the quality of service is inherently variable and sees
firms in this sector becoming frequent targets of brand attack
(Einwiller and Steilen, 2015;McColl-Kennedy et al., 2009;
Rokka et al., 2014). Hence, much of the brand negativity
research is approached from a recovery (service, reputation,
brand image) and issues management perspective. The causes
of such negativity varyas widely as the types. Zarantonello et al.
(2016) identify several antecedents of brand hate (a severe
manifestation of brand negativity), including corporate
wrongdoings, product failure, brand self-image incongruence
and violations of moral codes or individual rights. Others
identify breaches of increasingly higher consumerexpectations
(Grainer et al., 2014) and inauthentic claims (Hollenbeck and
Zinkhan, 2010). While many issues that trigger extreme
backlash are deemed beyond the control of firms (Aula, 2010),
it would appear that the broad range of such factors makes their
predictability problematic (Rauschnabel et al.,2016), thereby
contributing to poor firm recovery responses (McColl-
Kennedy et al.,2009).
These many and varied origins of negative sentimentmean that
not all brands are susceptible to the same degree. Those that can
control communication with close customers through strong
(social media) networks are more capable of resisting backlash.
Using the theory of social distance, Fullerton and Punj (2004)
Domains of influence
Tony Cooper, Constantino Stavros and Angela R. Dobele
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 28 · Number 5 · 2019 · 684–699
685
To continue reading
Request your trial