Marketing Innovation in the Self-Media Environment: How Should the Strong Respond After Being Harmed by the Weak - Huxiu#
#Omnivore
Marketing Innovation in the Self-Media Environment: How Should the Strong Respond After Being Harmed by the Weak#
This article explores how enterprises with a strong stereotype respond to the harm caused by consumers with a weak stereotype in the self-media environment. It analyzes the underlying logic of role reversal in harm events and proposes specific strategies from the perspectives of legal rights protection and marketing communication.
• In the self-media environment, enterprises should combine emotional and legal reasoning to gain polarized support from the bystander consumer group.
• Brands should adopt digital technology and emotional expressions to showcase their vulnerabilities, gaining sympathy and support from bystander consumers.
• Enterprises can shift bystander consumers' anger and polarized opposition towards infringing consumers through victim migration appeals and finding positives in negatives strategies.
Crisis management in branding is an important research direction in marketing. Previous academic and industry focus has mainly been on the response strategies of the "strong" after harming the "weak." However, in the current environment of flourishing self-media technology, little attention has been paid to how the "strong" should respond after being harmed by the "weak." The fundamental difference between the two lies in the role reversal of enterprises and consumers in harm events, where enterprises with a strong stereotype do not possess the victim's vulnerability characteristic like consumers with a weak stereotype.
Thus, the interchange of roles between the perpetrator and the victim subverts the underlying logic of brand crisis response. Practically, if enterprises ignore the situation, they can only silently endure the significant harm caused by widespread online dissemination; if enterprises respond carelessly, they may easily provoke negative group polarization reactions from bystander consumers. Therefore, whether in theoretical research or practical operations, marketing innovation in the self-media environment presents new opportunities and challenges for brand crisis response.
In the self-media environment, consumer-generated content can emerge endlessly online. A single consumer can make millions "hear/see" their "voice/action" and create various "voices/actions." Faced with a massive amount of information, it is challenging for enterprises to achieve precise regulation, as some consumers, for various motives and purposes, may intentionally or unintentionally mock, smear, or vilify brand images.
For example, according to survey data from the Tmall platform, 64% of merchants have suffered various forms of harm from consumers in the self-media environment, such as DingTalk being "collectively attacked" by elementary school students and Didi drivers being slandered by short video bloggers. At the same time, the economic losses caused to their brands or stores range from hundreds to tens of millions of yuan. The brand Tanya QI saw a sharp 40% drop in sales due to being smeared by consumers as "the official flagship store is not authorized by the brand."
Next, we will analyze the case of Luzhou Laojiao being deeply embroiled in the "rights protection door" incident.
Typical Incident Description: Luzhou Laojiao Won the Lawsuit but Lost Public Support
In December 2020, Ms. Zhang from Changsha, Hunan, filmed and uploaded a video on Douyin, mainly showing her pet cat licking its own feet, accompanied by the original sound music and advertising slogans of Luzhou Laojiao's "Guojiao 1573." This easily led people to associate the liquor with "smelly" feet. The video quickly went viral, sparking a wave of parody that severely defamed and damaged the brand image of Guojiao 1573. How should the harmed brand respond?
Luzhou Laojiao's approach was to sue Ms. Zhang for 200,000 yuan in damages and demand a public apology for 30 days. The court found that the video's content was clearly directed and had a significant derogatory and insulting intent towards the Luzhou Laojiao brand, ultimately ruling that Ms. Zhang must post an apology on her personal account and keep it pinned for a month, compensating Luzhou Laojiao 70,000 yuan. What was the outcome?
According to general rights protection logic, Luzhou Laojiao could be considered a major winner at this point. However, this incident sparked public outrage on self-media, and Luzhou Laojiao was criticized and trended on social media, winning the lawsuit but losing public support. Public sentiment monitoring showed that before and after the incident, the brand's positive online reputation dropped from 79% to 36%, while negative reputation rose from 5% to 44%, severely damaging the brand's reputation and value.
It is evident that when facing an emotionally resonant unconscious psychological group, if enterprises simply use legal weapons for rights protection according to traditional logic, it may lead to a deeper crisis for the brand. Where does the problem lie? On one hand, in the self-media environment, consumers' spontaneous voices/actions challenge the official voices/actions of enterprises, creating a two-way interaction that shifts the power dynamics between enterprises and consumers, challenging the traditional logic of crisis response; on the other hand, in the process of legal rights protection, if enterprises ignore the "strong-weak" comparison with infringing consumers, it will lead bystanders to perceive a lack of empathy or fairness, forming group resonance through emotional contagion in the self-media environment, ultimately culminating in group polarization.
Previous Response Strategy Overview: From the Perspective of Brands or Consumers
In light of the above situation, we cannot help but ask: In the self-media environment based on digital technology, how should brands with a strong stereotype respond to the infringement harm from consumers with a weak stereotype? Previous research on response strategies after harm between brands and consumers has mainly focused on the following three aspects:
First, enterprises harming consumers and their responses. This mainly reflects the response and compensation of the "strong" after harming the "weak," with the motivation of enterprises focusing outward. This is specifically reflected in two aspects: first, product quality harm and its response, including silence, denial, justification, and acknowledgment, with acknowledgment further divided into apology, forced recall, voluntary recall, and very diligent responses.
Secondly, remedies after service failures include tangible and intangible remedies, where the former mainly involves compensation, gifts, discounts, free services, refunds, and pro-social compensation, while the latter mainly involves apologies, explanations, speed of remedy, care, and politeness as psychological or social compensation. In the context of group service failures, for economic compensation, a public approach is better than a private one; for social compensation, a private approach is better than a public one.
Second, consumer rights protection after being harmed by enterprises. This mainly reflects the analysis of the "weak" after being harmed by the "strong," with the motivation of consumer rights protection focusing inward. This is specifically reflected in three aspects: first, consumer awareness of rights protection and costs, including rational and emotional rights protection, where the former refers to consumers maintaining their legitimate interests through legal means or policy procedures; the latter refers to consumers expressing their rights through emotional means, which has become the primary method for the weak to protect their rights.
Secondly, the institutional design of digital commercial platforms, where platform operators should adhere to legal standards, strictly control seller entry thresholds, strengthen supervision, establish a fair online environment, and create a unified complaint and dispute resolution mechanism at the international or national level. Finally, the improvement of consumer rights protection legal systems includes strengthening the dissemination of rights protection knowledge, optimizing consumer rights protection procedures, and improving related systems such as mental compensation and punitive damages.
Third, research on consumer harm to enterprises. This mainly reflects the classification of behaviors where the "weak" harm the "strong," with the motivation focusing outward. This is specifically reflected in two aspects: first, unethical consumer behavior, which refers to improper behavior by consumers when acquiring, using, or disposing of goods and services. Offline includes actively profiting from illegal behavior, passive profit behavior, actively problematic behavior, and non-harmful behavior. Online includes disruptive behavior, malicious self-serving behavior, restrained harm behavior, and copyright infringement behavior.
Secondly, consumer deviation behavior refers to actions that deprive enterprises, employees, or other consumers of resources, safety, image, etc., in both online and offline environments, which can be categorized into three types of deviation behavior: harming enterprises, harming employees, and harming other consumers. Behaviors harming enterprises largely overlap with unethical consumer behavior, while behaviors harming employees include personal attacks, verbal or rude harassment, stalking, etc. Behaviors harming other consumers include deviant behavior, verbal or physical harassment, invading others' personal space, and malicious online attacks.
Fourth, opportunities and space for marketing innovation. The left side of Figure 2 reflects the response research of the "strong" harming the "weak," while the right side reflects the response research of the "weak" harming the "strong." Fundamentally, the fourth situation differs from the previous three, as it reflects how the "strong" should respond after being harmed by the "weak" in the self-media environment. Due to the role reversal between enterprises with a strong stereotype and consumers with a weak stereotype in harm events, the underlying logic of the entire brand crisis response has been reversed.
Moreover, the harm and response in the first three situations focus on the individual level of both the perpetrator and the victim, while the harm and response in the fourth situation, based on digital technology in the self-media environment, easily trigger emotional contagion among online groups, ultimately leading to group polarization effects, causing significant confusion and challenges for enterprises' responses. It is clear that the reversal of the underlying logic in harm events and the occurrence of group polarization effects provide important opportunities and space for marketing innovation in the self-media environment.
How Should the Strong Respond
Combining the previous case of Luzhou Laojiao and similar examples, this article attempts to answer the following two questions from the perspectives of legal rights protection and marketing communication: First, in the self-media environment, how can victimized enterprises with a strong stereotype combine "emotional reasoning" and "legal reasoning" to gain polarized support from bystander consumer groups when using legal means to punish infringing consumers with a weak stereotype? Second, in the self-media environment, how should victimized enterprises with a strong stereotype express themselves as victims? How can they establish a united front with bystander consumers? How can they eliminate the polarized opposition from bystander consumers caused by punishing infringing consumers?
First, from the perspective of legal rights protection, analyze response strategies based on the process logic after the harm event:
Stage One: Public Statement of Accountability. In the self-media environment, when enterprises suffer harm from infringing consumers, if they use legal means for rights protection, they should first issue a public statement as an enterprise to hold infringing consumers accountable or warn them. At this point, they can require infringing consumers to publicly disclose the ins and outs of the matter on self-media platforms, apologize to the harmed enterprise, and keep this information pinned for a period. If the infringing consumer does not respond accordingly, further legal action can be taken.
This approach is a "courteous before force" method. Although the consumer's infringement has severely damaged the brand image, the enterprise remains magnanimous and does not impose excessive punishment, merely requesting a public apology, which will ultimately make bystander consumers feel justified and reasonable. Some enterprises, however, lack experience in this area and immediately resort to legal action without giving infringing consumers a chance to apologize or explain. If the infringing consumer maliciously harmed the brand image, bystander consumers may easily understand the enterprise's actions. But if the infringing consumer unintentionally harmed the brand image, this approach could easily put the enterprise in a passive position. Therefore, before initiating legal action, it is best for enterprises to communicate with infringing consumers to understand the motives behind their harmful behavior.
Stage Two: Seeking Economic Compensation. If faced with an irreconcilable situation, when enterprises take legal action to punish infringing consumers, they should also consider the social impact and consequences of different levels of compensation. Economic compensation can be divided into punitive compensation, compensatory compensation, and nominal compensation. Punitive compensation refers to additional compensation that exceeds the actual loss suffered by the infringed party, meaning that after compensating for the actual loss, a certain amount or multiple of compensation is added. Compensatory compensation refers to compensation based on the actual damage incurred.
The difference between the two lies in whether the infringer's subjective fault is distinguished. If enterprises ultimately impose punitive or compensatory damages on infringing consumers, they are likely to face polarized opposition from bystander consumers in the self-media environment. This is because, in the eyes of bystander consumers, enterprises with a strong stereotype can easily shift from being victims to perpetrators, while infringing consumers with a weak stereotype can easily shift from being perpetrators to victims.
If such a situation arises, how should enterprises respond? It is recommended that enterprises abandon the execution of punitive or compensatory damages and adopt nominal or symbolic compensation, such as requiring them to pay 1 yuan or another small amount, which would not place significant economic pressure on infringing consumers. This way, bystander consumers will not perceive the infringing consumers as having shifted from perpetrators to victims, nor will they view the harmed enterprise as having transformed into a perpetrator.
This approach will lead bystander consumers to feel that the harmed enterprise has maintained its rights from a "legal" perspective while forgiving or understanding the infringing consumers from an "emotional" perspective. Ultimately, achieving a balance and unity between emotional and legal reasoning will make bystander consumers believe that the harmed enterprise is "reasonable" and can "spare" others, portraying it as a magnanimous and empathetic brand. Thus, in the self-media environment, through this emotional contagion and mobilization, polarized support from bystander consumers can be achieved.
Stage Three: Providing Social Support. If enterprises execute punitive or compensatory damages, it is evident that this will impose significant economic pressure on ordinary infringing consumers. In the self-media environment, such a situation is likely to provoke polarized opposition from bystander consumers. So, how should enterprises respond at this point?
If they want the plot to reverse like the previously mentioned nominal or symbolic compensation, it is recommended that enterprises thoroughly understand the family situation of the infringing consumers to see if there are any needs for support or assistance. For example, if the infringing consumer or their family members are unemployed, can the enterprise offer them job opportunities? This would also lead bystander consumers to perceive the enterprise as having "humanity," as they have legally punished the infringing consumers while also providing assistance. Such a convoluted plot, under the impetus of self-media technology, may be infinitely amplified, not only recovering the brand value lost due to the infringing consumer's actions but also enhancing the brand image.
From the perspective of marketing communication, discuss response strategies based on the interests and demands of different parties in the harm event:
Victimized Enterprise Perspective: The Strong Show Weakness. In the self-media environment, when enterprises suffer harm from infringing consumers, they can assess whether a response is necessary based on the severity of the damage to brand value and image. If a response is needed, they must consider how to express themselves as victims. As previously mentioned, enterprises with a strong stereotype lack the characteristics of being harmed, making it difficult for bystanders to perceive them as injured.
It's like a child punching an adult; bystanders would find it hard to believe that the adult could be harmed, as they do not possess vulnerability characteristics. However, in the self-media environment, due to the widespread dissemination of information, the value and image of the brand can suffer severe damage. If enterprises merely seek to quell the harm event, they cannot recover the losses already incurred.
If enterprises want to turn "crisis" into "opportunity," they need to mobilize emotions to gain sympathy and support from bystander consumers, thereby punishing infringing consumers. The key is to make bystander consumers perceive the vulnerability of the enterprise as a victim, as vulnerability is the main characteristic of being easily harmed. Achieving this is not difficult, as it involves "the strong showing weakness":
On one hand, enterprises can develop virtual digital avatars representing their brand using digital technology, such as anthropomorphized cartoon characters. On the other hand, they can pair this with emotionally charged messaging, such as during the pandemic when DingTalk was "attacked," the response message could be: "I am still a 5-year-old child, please show mercy." Using digital avatars can enhance the perception of the brand's vulnerability, while emotional expressions can evoke sympathy from bystander consumers. Together, in the self-media environment, this emotional contagion will resonate with them, ultimately gaining their polarized support.
Bystander Consumer Perspective: Shifting the Conflict. When infringing consumers harm the brand, enterprises can employ marketing communication strategies to launch victim migration appeals, which means that the harmed brand expresses bystander consumers as victims through persuasive information strategies, allowing them to perceive themselves as harmed. Their identity shifts from bystanders to victims, making bystander consumers "insiders" rather than "outsiders" concerning the harmed brand; conversely, they become "outsiders" concerning the infringing consumers. The result is a fundamental shift in the identity categorization of bystander consumers, which will also alter their moral evaluations of both parties involved in the harm, effectively "shifting the conflict."
When enterprises successfully employ victim migration appeals, bystander consumers will develop feelings of disgust, contempt, and anger towards infringing consumers. In the self-media environment, this emotional contagion will resonate, creating a collective hatred towards infringing consumers, ultimately leading to polarized support for the harmed brand.
However, not all bystander consumers will experience a shift in identity perception upon seeing victim migration appeals; this depends on the self-brand overlap between bystander consumers and the harmed brand. The more/less individual psychological self extends to the brand, the higher/lower the self-brand overlap. The victim migration appeal is easier/harder to occur among bystander consumers because the higher/lower the overlap, the easier/harder it is for bystander consumers to regard the harmed brand as "one of their own," thus triggering easier/harder identity shift perceptions.
Infringing Consumer Perspective: Finding Positives in Negatives. When enterprises punish infringing consumers, leading to public outrage and polarized opposition from bystander consumers, the role of infringing consumers shifts from perpetrators to victims. If enterprises can guide bystander consumers to discover the meaning behind the punishment of infringing consumers, and this search for meaning is initiated by bystander consumers on self-media, we believe this information will reduce the collective anger resonance among bystander consumers, thereby eliminating their polarized opposition to the brand.
This meaning is called victim meaning, which refers to the process of people seeking benefits and positive outcomes from negative experiences, i.e., "finding positives in negatives," for example: adversity is a form of wealth. Therefore, when infringing consumers are punished by enterprises, if they can guide bystander consumers to initiate the search for benefits during the punishment process of infringing consumers on self-media.
For example, after being punished, infringing consumers may learn a lesson and refrain from similar behaviors, and they themselves may also experience personal growth. This could effectively reduce the collective anger resonance among bystander consumers, thus eliminating their polarized opposition to the brand. In this process, if enterprises leverage platform algorithms to frequently push the information about the search for benefits after initiating victim meaning to bystander consumers for browsing and reading, it will continuously challenge or correct their prior inherent beliefs of anger towards the brand. As the frequency of information push increases and the proportion of related comments rises, they will form new beliefs consistent with victim meaning, which will gradually replace their previous unconscious emotional blind obedience to the group.
Conclusion
In summary, this article fundamentally differs from previous research in that the roles of enterprises with a "strong" stereotype and consumers with a "weak" stereotype have reversed in harm events. This "reversal" subverts the underlying logic of traditional brand crisis response methods, providing significant opportunities and space for marketing innovation. In the self-media environment, this article identifies specific strategies for how enterprises with a strong stereotype should respond after being harmed by consumers with a weak stereotype from the perspectives of legal rights protection and marketing communication.
From the perspective of legal rights protection strategies, it is divided into three stages: public statement of accountability, seeking economic compensation, and providing social support. From the perspective of marketing communication strategies, it is divided into three perspectives: the perspective of the victimized enterprise, the perspective of bystander consumers, and the perspective of infringing consumers.
Additionally, from an industry perspective, the conclusions of this study also have reference and borrowing significance for handling similar harm events in fields such as government, education, and healthcare. From a societal perspective, how to mitigate or eliminate the significant risks and adverse consequences brought by group negative polarization in the self-media environment to society and the nation is also something this study may shed light on.