Vancouver Marketing Consultant

—————————————————————————————————————————-

By Mark Smiciklas

A recent news story about iPod Loyalists places the iconic Apple brand in the middle of a discussion about the spread of “iCrime”. What happens to a brand when its influence is so great that it becomes the central focus of negative societal behaviour? Do companies have a social responsibility to try to mitigate some of the negative behavior that may be associated with their brands? Can negative brand evangelism result in long term damage to a brand or do passionate consumers simply ignore negative brand stories?

Brand Evangelism

Brand Evangelism is deemed the top rung of the brand loyalty ladder – it occurs when passionate consumers of products or services become so enthralled with a brand that they willingly engage in word of mouth marketing on behalf of an organization. These consumers have such a core belief in the brand and what it stands for that they try to convince their network to embrace its purchase or use.

In my opinion, Negative Brand Evangelism occurs when a brand becomes such a status symbol that it inadvertently promotes negative social behavior.

Social Brand Responsibility

Do companies have a responsibility to try to mitigate some of the negative behavior associated with their brands? In the case of the iPod, Apple surely can’t take responsibility for the actions of every criminal that targets their consumers – but they could try to reduce the their consumers’ exposure to risk by embedding some features into iPods that might make them less attractive to steal and re-sell. Wouldn’t this add even more value to the brand?

Tony Barr, Marketing Strategist and Founder of Brand Reasonality, believes that there are brand benefits to addressing user risk:

“As a parent of two teenagers who own iPods, I find your question particularly thought-provoking. The brewing industry’s advocacy of “responsible consumption” may be useful analog. Certainly, in some circumstances, companies have a legal duty to warn against certain types of conduct – known or potential – associated with their products or services. I suppose that one might posit, as a general principle, that companies who claim social responsibility as one of their brand pillars have an implicit duty to act reasonably against legitimate risk to their brand audience – and, derivatively, against risks to their brand value. In the case of the iPod, in particular, we would do well to remember that parents – while they might not be brand adopters per se – play an important gate-keeping role in purchase and usage behaviors. I suspect, again, as a parent myself, that reaction of the gatekeeper class to such social responsibility would be generally favourable. Moreover, I suspect – or, minimally, hope – that the reaction of the brand adopters would be similarly favourable.”

Peter Mojica, VP of Product Strategy at AXS-One Inc in Charlotte North Carolina, feels that “corporate brands have a responsibility to build products that meet consumer demand, and can be sold at a profit and build shareholder value.” During this business process, he feels that companies should act responsibly but cannot be expected to “take responsibility for miscreant’s societal ills.”

Peter goes on to draw parallels between Apple and Nike:

“I can recall a lot of news stories around Nike and the desire for Air Jordan sneakers which led to many a crime wave. It’s hard to peg Nike for some diabolical plan to create a product that would generate a desire for one fellow to knock another fellow senseless and take his sneakers off his feet! Meanwhile, behind the scenes, Nike and the Jordan brand gave away millions to charitable foundations.”

Public Relations in the Face of Negative Brand Evangelism

What should companies do when faced with negative brand evangelism? In the case of “iCrimes”, there has been some press (associated with police agencies) suggesting that consumers should swap out the traditional white iPod ear buds less obvious black ones…but I’m not sure if there has ever been a formal statement regarding this issue from Apple.

Nathan King, Art Director at Austin and Williams in New York City, suggests that the lack of any “very public announcements from Apple” is an indication that they are not concerned about iCrimes having a negative effect on the brand. “They didn’t try to change their product to react to the negative behavior. The masses of people wearing the white ear buds is a constant, visual reminder that people are using iPods – why would a company want to get rid of that?”

Brent Skinner, President & CEO at STETrevisions and a Web 2.0 public relations and marketing expert, suggests there really only two ways for companies to address Negative Brand Evangelism:

1. Ignore it completely – the goal being to starve any attention negative brand evangelism might create
2. Face it head on with the logic that open communication breeds truth – If the brand is undeserving of negative press, the issue will burn out more quickly with a formal series of rebuttals

Brent goes on to say:

“I know folks in communications positions at very large, high-profile companies who take option one as a matter of course and I know others who embrace item two as dogma. However, in my opinion, the approach partially depends on the strength of your brand in the first place, and your assessment of your own brand’s strength had better be accurate. For instance, GM seems to have largely ignored the groundswell of viral anti-GM sentiment that followed the release “Who Killed the Electric Car?” I think the company overestimated its brand’s strength, and now may be paying the ultimate price.”

Andrea Hill, Director of Social Media and Interactive Technology at Worldways Social Marketing in Denver, feels that it’s important to understand how your brand is perceived and to be active in managing your brand reputation. “I believe it’s far better to recognize a problem than to ignore it, and appear obtuse and out-of-touch.”

In the end, I think if a product or service has enough brand evangeslists it can likely avoid any long term erosion due to negative behaviour association. Mark Sofman, an experienced business communicator and manager of outreach, advocacy and issues management programs in Washington DC, feels that brand evangelists help protect a brand value in face of negative evangelism. He thinks that passionate consumers can be “harnessed to good purpose…not just to studiously ignore bad news, but to be motivated to critique negative stories.”

Long Term Brand Damage?

Can negative brand evangelism cause long term damage or do passionate consumers simply ignore negative brand stories? Logic might suggest that negative evangelism should erode brand value to some degree. However, using iPod as an example, I really wonder whether the brand will suffer when I read stories about kids risking getting stabbed rather than giving up their iPods…that kind of loyalty is scary!

Peter Mojica believes in the unfortunate truth that any kind of attention is better than no attention at all and feels that negative brand evangelism may actually fuel sales increases in certain situations. In the case of iPod, he doesn’t see a huge impact on the brand because the negative incidents taking place likely represent a very small percentage of the overall brand experience, which is overwhelmingly positive.

Brandon Mendelson, Editor in Chief at GSO Press in Albany New York, doesn’t think strong brands suffer long term damage:

“Look at the WWE, it took a real hard hit after the Chris Benoit incident, but over the long term their stock went up and the audience came back to watching their programming. The passionate consumers will look at the negative stories, but (after a short period of time) it won’t weigh too much into the purchasing process.”

Walter Jones, Director of Morris News Service in Atlanta GA, feels that most media is fair is dishing out brand criticism and that consumers are smart enough to recognize whether or not brands are victims of circumstance. He feels that the level of brand damage has a lot to do with how companies market their products:

“If a company deliberately sought a gangster image, say, then a news story about crime associated with the product would inevitably mention the possiblity that the company’s marketing may have set the tone for those crimes and the company would be fair game for criticism in such a case. On the other hand, I think reporters can recognize when a company is a kind of secondary victim. For example, when gangs adopted the jerseys of professional sports teams because of their colors or no-nonsense mascots rather than their success on the playing field, no one accused those teams of encouraging gang activity.”

I find this issue very interesting and been having trouble establishing a firm opinion:

• As an “iPod Parent” I don’t expect Apple to help mitigate my kids risk…I see this as my responsibility as a parent. But the issue is real – kids are getting rolled over for their iPods. Luckily, my son has taken matters into his own hands and has established his own policy of not taking his iPod to school and has traded in his white ear buds for innocuous black ones.
• As a socially responsible citizen, I have to say that I am troubled by what I perceive to be indifference on the part of Apple. A trial that began recently crystallizes the point for me – A youth is charged in the stabbing death of 22-year-old Michael Oatway, an Ottawa man allegedly killed for his girlfriend’s iPod on a city bus. It’s ridiculous to even suggest that Apple has any control over this type of behaviour or is culpable in any way, but, as an iconic brand, wouldn’t these type of stories prompt some sort or response? The kid died because he was wearing an iPod…Is Apple not disturbed by this?
• As a marketer and business person, I appreciate and understand the stance that a company’s main (and some would say only) goal is to make a profit – and it can’t be held accountable for negative brand evangelism, particularly if their product or service is safe to use and does not pose a direct risk to consumers.

Michael Oatway was 22 years old when he was fatally stabbed over the iPod he had borrowed from his girlfriend (Image: Globe and Mail)

What do you think? Please submit a comment

(To enter comments from the main blog page, please click the article title and scroll down to the bottom of the post)