These are the days of hashtag fire. When there is outrage against a brand, people protest on social media. On Twitter, being a social media channel that has enormous popularity and ease of use of, hashtags are the most common way of showing protest. One of the latest incidents that sparked a fire in the aforementioned category was a customers’ annoyance against Nike and Gillette. The outrage against Nike was caused by Colin Kaepernick, an athlete and the new face of the brand who had protested against police brutality in the US. The outrage against Gillette was due to its stand taken in a social issue—contributing to #MeToo by asking men to be more respectful.
There can be multiple causes leading to hashtag campaigns. A segment of a brand’s customers may not like the content of an ad, or they may interpret the content to be against or demean a section of the society. This leads to customers’ reaction towards the brand.
So nice to see @Gillette jumping on the “men are horrible” campaign permeating mainstream media and Hollywood entertainment. I for one will never use your product again. https://t.co/uZf7v4sFKm
— James Woods (@RealJamesWoods) January 14, 2019
Do such hashtag fires contribute to the destruction of the brand? Latest reports from the sales of these respective brands suggest that the destruction is likely to be minimal. In fact, there may even be advantages due to the popularity earned from the campaign.
To understand this, we must understand the attribution theory. Attribution theory explains how people find causes for the events. When the brand’s ads cause ire among customers, the causes can be internal to the brand or external. As long as the causes are not internal to the brand, the destruction caused due to hashtag fires will be minimal. When the causes are internal to the brand, for example bad quality of the product, we can expect the sales to show a decreasing trend.