Positioning: How companies should deal with haters when publishing opinions
Posted: Tue Jan 21, 2025 3:43 am
When brands and consumers talk to each other, actions generate reactions. In the digital age, this effect is magnified as organizations declare clear positions on topics that naturally do not please all customers. Therefore, when faced with a series of hostile comments, brands and companies must be aware of the best ways to deal with them.
For Lúcia Barros, a professor at the São Paulo School of Business Administration (FGV EAESP), one of the authors of a study on consumer reactions to companies' responses, the definition of assertiveness proposed by the Getúlio Vargas Foundation refers to a form of communication that expresses thoughts, feelings and beliefs in a direct, respectful and appropriate manner, which should be better received by the public.
The study, funded by the São Paulo Research nigeria whatsapp data Foundation (Fapesp), analyzed companies' responses to uncivilized comments from followers regarding the LGBTQIA+ movement, the fight against machismo, and the fight against racism.
Furthermore, the initiative provides recommendations so that companies can respond to these comments in the best way possible, in order to support a cause without necessarily alienating consumers. In this context, the research found that responding assertively is the most appropriate way to deal with this type of situation.
Assertiveness vs. Sarcasm
Delving deeper into the importance of assertiveness, Barros emphasizes that by using an assertive approach, the brand does not fail to position itself and remains firm in the cause, in a civilized manner, providing teachings without being aggressive. The professor also emphasizes that whether consumers are associated with a cause or not, they prefer to be answered assertively.
Lúcia says that she has come across countless brands responding to rude comments, and many of them were ironic, harsh and mocking. However, this type of attitude can alienate all consumers, not just the most prejudiced ones who made rude comments.
The project conducted five experimental studies in which fictitious posts were created, based on real publications and brands, in which a company made a post about the LGBT+, feminist or racial equality cause and, due to the post, received uncivil comments from some users. The participant evaluated the comment and the type of response from the company, one set a sarcastic tone, while the other took a more educational approach.
Barros emphasizes that each participant received only one post with a prejudiced comment and the appropriate response from the company to evaluate, on a scale of 0 to 7, how much they liked the brand's response. Through this survey, the researchers performed a statistical analysis in order to identify an average of the participants' evaluation of the response.
The professor concludes by reporting that, in general, all participants preferred more polite responses, considered assertive by the research. However, tolerance for sarcastic comments increased according to the individual's level of involvement with a given cause. Those who were more involved with the cause did not mind the aggressive and ironic responses much, unlike those who were not involved with the cause, who rejected sarcastic responses much more.
For Lúcia Barros, a professor at the São Paulo School of Business Administration (FGV EAESP), one of the authors of a study on consumer reactions to companies' responses, the definition of assertiveness proposed by the Getúlio Vargas Foundation refers to a form of communication that expresses thoughts, feelings and beliefs in a direct, respectful and appropriate manner, which should be better received by the public.
The study, funded by the São Paulo Research nigeria whatsapp data Foundation (Fapesp), analyzed companies' responses to uncivilized comments from followers regarding the LGBTQIA+ movement, the fight against machismo, and the fight against racism.
Furthermore, the initiative provides recommendations so that companies can respond to these comments in the best way possible, in order to support a cause without necessarily alienating consumers. In this context, the research found that responding assertively is the most appropriate way to deal with this type of situation.
Assertiveness vs. Sarcasm
Delving deeper into the importance of assertiveness, Barros emphasizes that by using an assertive approach, the brand does not fail to position itself and remains firm in the cause, in a civilized manner, providing teachings without being aggressive. The professor also emphasizes that whether consumers are associated with a cause or not, they prefer to be answered assertively.
Lúcia says that she has come across countless brands responding to rude comments, and many of them were ironic, harsh and mocking. However, this type of attitude can alienate all consumers, not just the most prejudiced ones who made rude comments.
The project conducted five experimental studies in which fictitious posts were created, based on real publications and brands, in which a company made a post about the LGBT+, feminist or racial equality cause and, due to the post, received uncivil comments from some users. The participant evaluated the comment and the type of response from the company, one set a sarcastic tone, while the other took a more educational approach.
Barros emphasizes that each participant received only one post with a prejudiced comment and the appropriate response from the company to evaluate, on a scale of 0 to 7, how much they liked the brand's response. Through this survey, the researchers performed a statistical analysis in order to identify an average of the participants' evaluation of the response.
The professor concludes by reporting that, in general, all participants preferred more polite responses, considered assertive by the research. However, tolerance for sarcastic comments increased according to the individual's level of involvement with a given cause. Those who were more involved with the cause did not mind the aggressive and ironic responses much, unlike those who were not involved with the cause, who rejected sarcastic responses much more.