When brands take a stand: the nature of consumers’ polarized reactions to social narrative videos
| Date | 20 May 2020 |
| Pages | 532-548 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-10-2019-2606 |
| Published date | 20 May 2020 |
| Author | Tyler Milfeld,Daniel J. Flint |
When brands take a stand: the nature of
consumers’polarized reactions to
social narrative videos
Tyler Milfeld and Daniel J. Flint
Department of Marketing, Haslam College of Business, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, USA
Abstract
Purpose –A growing number of consumers expect brands to take a stand on social issues. When Gill ette launched its video with a social message
in 2019, the popular press described it as divisive and controversial. This study aims to examine themes behind the polarized consumer response,
aiding brands in the development of social narrative videos.
Design/methodology/approach –The authors use an existential-phenomenological approach to investigate the meaning behind consumers’
reactions to the Gillette video. Empirical data collection consisted of 24 semi-structured, in-depth interviews.Data were analyzed using the
hermeneutic method.
Findings –By viewing the Gillette video through the lens of a story, this research uncovers howmarketing stories can lead to different
interpretations. Specifically, the roots of polarization lie in perceived realism activation and character activation. Additionally, product placement
may activate persuasive intent, interrupting immersion into the story.
Practical implications –Brand managers should consider the potential for alternative interpretations when using storytelling. By measuring a
viewer’s narrative transportation, it is possible to identify different interpretations. From a tactical standpoint, brand managers should be cautious
about using celebrity endorsers and prominent product placement in social narrative videos. These cues activate persuasive intent, leading to
alternative interpretations.
Originality/value –While marketing research has tended to focus on storytelling’s positive outcomes, this research considers how stories can resu lt
in polarizing outcomes for brands. The concept of social narrative videos is introduced and a framework is presented that outlines facilitators and
inhibitors for this type of brand communication.
Keywords Qualitative research, Brand management, Narrative transportation, Polarization, Brand storytelling
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
A growing number of consumers expect brands to take a stand
on social issues (Conick, 2018). Brands such as Gillette,
Always and Heineken have posted videos on social media to
communicate their social stances. For instance, Gillette
debuted a video in January 2019confronting toxic masculinity
by challenging men to condemn sexual harassment and
bullying. The video was divisive (AdAge, 2019)and
controversial (McCluskey, 2019) with social media posts
ranging from “Shut the F--k Up (STFU)”to “you had me in
tears –this is how to use your brand for a change.”However,
what led to brand polarization(i.e. why some people embraced
the video and others denounced it) is missing from popular
discourse. This research seeks to examine the themes
underlying the polarizedconsumer response.
The Gillette video departs from traditional brand
communication that uses overtpersuasion focusing on product
benefits (Brechman and Purvis, 2015) and logical arguments
(Ching et al., 2013). Instead of using persuasiontactics such as
celebrity spokespersons (Dimofte et al., 2015), activation of
positive memories with the product (Belk, 1991;Braun et al.,
2002;Cervellon and Brown, 2018) or productassociation cues
(Escalas, 2004), the Gillette video introduces characters,
creates conflict and resolves the tension by showing corrective
behavior. The product line is neither shown nor referenced;
instead, Gillette deliversasocial message through multiple plot
lines. The video opens with several men looking at themselves
in a mirror followed by several scenes depicting bullying and
inappropriate male-female interaction. Then the video shows
the same characters behaving more appropriately. These
multiple story plots may providethe viewer with several indices
(touchpoints) to connectto the story (Schank, 1999;Woodside
et al.,2008). Polkinghorne (1989, p. 142) notes, “more than
one plot can provide a meaningfulconstellation and integration
for the same set of events.”The video concludes by stating, “it
is only by challenging ourselves to do more that we can get
closer to our best.”In summary, Gillette aims to persuade by
structuringthe social message around a story.
The current issue and full text archiveof this journal is available on Emerald
Insight at: https://www.emerald.com/insight/1061-0421.htm
Journal of Product & Brand Management
29/2 (2021) 532–548
© Emerald Publishing Limited [ISSN 1061-0421]
[DOI 10.1108/JPBM-10-2019-2606]
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of Flowers Foods, Inc.
Received 19 October2019
Revised 9 March 2020
20 April 2020
Accepted 23 April 2020
532
By considering the Gillette video as a story, we bridge three
literature streams. Corporate social responsibility (CSR)
literature has examined proactive communication strategies
(Groza et al., 2011), the communication message (Peloza and
Shang, 2011) and interactive communication (Eberle et al.,
2013)–generally concluding that corporate social
communication results in positive attitudes (Du et al.,2010;
Eberle et al.,2013).To our knowledge, however, this literature
has devoted little attention tothe use of stories. In contrast,
public health literature considers how storytelling can change
attitudes about smoking (Dal Cin et al., 2007;Lochbuehler
et al., 2010), teen pregnancy (Moyer–Gusé et al.,2011)and
alcohol use (Banerjee and Greene, 2013). Thisliterature often
examines short films (Gebbers et al., 2017;Lochbuehler et al.,
2010;Murphy et al., 2013), newspaper articles (Kim et al.,
2012) or public service announcements (Dunlop et al., 2010)
but does not consider when corporations are a story’s source.
Narrative persuasion literature considers marketing stories but
not social messages (Ching et al.,2013;Escalas, 2004;Phillips
and McQuarrie, 2010). As a result, knowledgeis lacking about
the use of storytelling with a dual persuasion objective to shift
social and brand attitudes(Table 1).
Before delving into existing literature, it is important to
define two terms. The terms story and narrative have been used
interchangeably (Feldman et al., 2004;Hinyard and Kreuter,
2007;Van Laer et al.,2014). One reason is that some
researchers define the terms accordingto structure, while others
define them based on meaning to the story receiver. From a
structural perspective, a story is a type of narrative structure
depicting chronological events causally linked to a cohesive
theme (Brechman and Purvis, 2015;Haven, 2007;Stern,
1994). Another type of narrative structure uses fact-based,
logical arguments(Ching et al., 2013). All stories are narratives,
but not all narratives are stories(Haven, 2007). This structural
difference is not the only way to conceptualizestories.
A key characteristic of stories (vs fact-based arguments) is
that they are polysemic and more ambiguous, often generating
multiple interpretations (Padgett and Allen, 1997). The
storyteller or brand creates a story with an intended meaning
(Fog et al.,2005;Padgett and Allen,1997); but story receivers
may have different interpretations (Gabriel, 2000;Haven,
2007). Fables and parables are written with a specific lesson in
mind (Gabriel,2000) and brands have an intended meaning for
their story that focuses on a singular message(Lundqvist et al.,
2013). Damon Jones, Vice President of Global
Communications for Gillette’s parent company, Procter and
Gamble, explainsthe Gillette narrative for its video:
We really want to shine light on the bad behaviors that are happening in
society, but more importantly on some of the good ones because that’s
where we know most guys are really at King (2019).
The intended meaning –or brand narrative–is the depiction of
better behaviors for the next generation of men (King, 2019).
Because stories can generate multiplemeanings, a narrative can
refer to the story receiver’s interpretation (Van Laer et al.,
2014). Therefore, a story can generate multiple meanings or
narratives. We integrate these two concepts into our definition
of a social narrative video. We use the term video to refer to an
audiovisual communication form that breaks free from the
creative and logistical limitations of a 30-s television (TV) ad
(Brechman and Purvis, 2015). The term video helps to
distinguish thisformat from the traditional 30-s TV ad.
Thus, we define a social narrative video as “afirm- or brand-
initiated social message that uses a longer-form audiovisual
format.”The word narrativereinforces that there is an intended
meaning from the brand. From a structural standpoint, social
narrative videos can use stories or fact-based arguments. This
research focuses on social narrative videos using a story
structure. Real-world examples include Always’“Like a Girl,”
Heineken’s“Open Your Mind, Open Your World”and
Microsoft’s“Bethe One”(Table 2)[1]. In the remainder of this
manuscript, we use the term social narrative videos to refer to
videos using a storystructure.
Social narrative videos providea novel context for examining
how brands use storytelling because of the anecdotal evidence
for consumer polarization in the form of divergent beliefs or
actions emanating from the same stimulus (Ramírez et al.,
2019). Marketing researchhas tended to investigate each of the
poles independently as follows: brand love (Batra et al., 2012)
or brand hate (Zarantonello et al., 2016). While emerging
research on polarization investigates how brands can manage
its effects (Ramírez et al., 2019), less is known about factors
contributing to the phenomenon, particularly a brand’s own
communication. The Gillette video provides an interesting
context to examine this phenomenon. Popular press articles
have noted that Gillette was praised and condemned (Evans,
2019), attracted support and outrage (Hsu, 2019) and was
divisive (AdAge, 2019). By examining the Gillette video
through the lens of a story, we showthe roots of polarization.
Specifically, this research offers several contributions. First,
we build on emerging brand polarization literature by
considering the brand’s communicationas apolarizing source.
Brand hate literature has explored several antecedents
including country-of-origin, consumer experience with the
product, users’stereotypes and the brand’s social performance
(Zarantonello et al., 2016). We show how a brand’s
communication, using social narrative videos, can lead to both
positive and negativebrand attitudes.
Second, we contribute to narrative persuasion literature by
examining the same story’s differentinterpretations. Marketing
research has tended to focus on storytelling’s positive outcome
on customer equity (Keller, 1993), brand trust (Kaufman,
2003) and customers’willingness to pay (Lundqvist et al.,
2013). In fact, emerging research has suggested that stories
may be more effective than traditional, argumentative
approaches (Dessart, 2018;Kim et al.,2017). However, the
Gillette video exposes storytelling’s potential polarization.
Through the perspective of consumers who watched the
Gillette video, we answerthe call to understand how stories can
result in polarizingoutcomes for brands (Van Laer et al., 2019).
Third, we introduce the concept of social narrativevideos into
the literature and distinguish social narrative videos from
product-related simulation (Escalas, 2004), firm-originated
stories (Lundqvist et al.,2013) and brand biographies (Tezer
et al.,2019). These types of storytelling focus on the product or
brand. In contrast,social narrative videos focus on a social issue
and the brand plays a secondary role. This dual persuasion
objective has implications for the tactics that brands use with
social narrativevideos.
Nature of consumers’polarized reactions
Tyler Milfeld and Daniel J. Flint
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 29 · Number 2 · 2021 · 532–548
533
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting