When brands transgress, do consumers support warm versus competent brands differently?

Examining whether brands perceived to have "warmth and friendliness" or "competence and skillfulness" generate more consumer support after brands are involved in a scandal

Background

Brands that provide similar services, such as Uber and Lyft, also find themselves in similar scandals. But they don't all face the same consumer responses. For example, while Uber's U.S. market share declined over the course of the scandals, Lyft's market share remained steady (source). In this project, we examined whether pre-transgression brand image predicts consumers' responses after the transgression takes place.

Methodology

Study designs: Lab experiments, surveys, experimental scenarios, archival data
Statistical analyses: Linear regressions, between-subjects/mixed ANOVAs, mediation analyses, factor analyses

Main Findings

Consumers are more likely to support a warm and friendly brand than a competent and skilled brand after the brands have engaged in identical transgressions. This is because consumers are better able to separate the transgression from the brand when the brand is warm than when it is competent.

Implications

For new brands, it will pay dividends to invest in cultivating a warm and friendly image. Brand managers navigating through a scandal may emphasize the warmth of their brand and try to separate the brand from the scandal rather than minimizing it.

Next Steps

What types of remedial actions can brands do to repair their reputations? When do competent brands come out ahead?

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse