Research & Insights
Brands Taking a Stand: Online Outrage & Brand Loyalty
Background: Brands are increasingly trying to connect with consumers by aligning with their values, acting as “forces for good.” But in today’s polarized world, taking a stance on social issues is risky. Aligning with one side often draws intense outrage from the opposition, which plays out publicly on social media.
The Business Insight: Conventional wisdom says backlash is bad for business. Our research proves the opposite can be true. When a brand is attacked for its stance, core customers often perceive it as an attack on their own personal values. This motivates them to “defend” their values by supporting the brand even more passionately. Far from destroying loyalty, the outrage can actually act as a catalyst to deepen it.
Read Summary in The Conversation | Read the Full Paper
Managing Online Trust in a Digital World
The Research: This analysis reviews a decade of digital marketing research to understand how consumers navigate a digital environment filled with native advertising, influencer marketing, data tracking, and fake reviews. It applies a theoretical lens known as the “Defensive Suspicion Model” to explain consumer responses to these tactics. The framework suggests that when consumers detect manipulative intent, they often activate a psychological “defense shield.” This results in skepticism not just of the specific message, but a distrust that can generalize to the brand itself and the industry more broadly.
The Business Insight: Compliance does not equal trust. A marketing tactic can be legal but still trigger consumer defensiveness. Forward-thinking brands must look beyond minimum compliance to identify “trust leaks” or tactics that erode long-term equity. Proactive transparency is essential not only to future-proof the business against an increasingly regulated digital landscape, but to safeguard against market-driven backlash that often hurts brands faster than any regulation.
Social Media Regulation: Pushback against Censorship
The Research: This study investigates how different cultural groups respond to social media regulation. Common assumptions suggest that cultures which value group harmony might be more accepting of government rules. Our research challenges this. We found that groups with a collective history of censorship exhibit a strong motivation to resist social media regulation. Their lived experience primes them to view government intervention not as protection but as a threat to their fundamental freedom.
The Policy Insight: As Western governments increasingly push for stricter social media regulation and content moderation to enhance public safety, they may underestimate the complexity of the public response. For large segments of a multicultural society, restrictions are not seen as safety features but as triggers for resistance. Policies that ignore these diverse lived experiences risk deepening societal polarization as safety measures can be reinterpreted as overreach and provoke the very instability they aim to prevent.
saeidkermani.com 