Amity Journal of Media & Communication Studies
2015, Vol. 5, No. 1 – 2, 55-65
Copyright 2015 by ASCO
Amity University Rajasthan (ISSN 2231 – 1033)
Corporate Response Strategies:
Indian Brands Manage Negativity on Social
Dr. Smeeta Mishra
Associate Professor
Institute of Management Technology
Email ID: [email protected]
The public nature of consumer complaining on the Internet has made brand communication with angry customers unpredictable, risky
and tough. This study examines three cases involving consumer complaints made on social media against Indian brands: Amul,
Snapdeal and Air India. Analysis of their brand communication shows that while these firms made several correct moves in their quest
to manage negativity on social media, they still have a long way to go. Brands today not only need to manage perceptions of fairness in
their handling of an issue in a public forum, but they also need to keep their tone both conversational and polite while engaging with a
complaining consumer. Apart from making their responses persuasive and impactful, brands need to take into accountthe views of other
consumers who are observing the onlineinteraction. They also have to ensure that other brands do not capitalize on the social media
turbulence faced by them. Much of this is possible if brands re-frame their goal of merely containing bad news whenever there is an
online outcry against them to that of using the opportunity for improved customer loyalty and brand experience.
Keywords: Social Media; Consumer Complaints; Brand Communication; Crisis Communication.
INTRODUCTION
Consumer complaining is transforming from a
private affair shared with friends and family to a
public phenomenon on the Internet (Ward
&Ostrom, 2006). Today, Indian consumers, just
liketheir counterparts across the world, can share
their grievance against a company with thousands
of other people at little cost to them. HennigThurau et al., (2010) compare the process of
brands managing relationships with consumers
akin to playing “pinball” where the course is often
unpredictable and “the slightest misuse can be
amplified into a catastrophic crisis” (p. 313).
In such a scenario, how a brand deals with
“negative electronic word-of-mouth” assumes
tremendous importance and brands have to tread
with care since miscommunication can escalate
things and lead to a full-blown crisis
(Noort&Willemsen, 2011). In fact, a single
complaint can spiral out of control and affect the
reputation of the firm. Hence, determining the
appropriate corporate response to a negative
situation becomes critical.
This study is based on three cases that draw upon
events that happened in the year 2014-15
involving known Indian brands: Amul, Air India
and Snapdeal. Specifically, the study examines
response strategies of the firms to online
complaint messages posted by consumers. Such a
study of corporate responses to negative electronic
word-of-mouth has substantial implications. How
companies deal with online complaints from
consumers is an important area of study
considering the fact that India has more than 300
million Internet users and is home to the second
largest Internet user base in the world in the year
2015 (“IAMAI says,” 2015). While Internet
penetration stands at a limited 19 percent, it also
shows tremendous potential for growth, especially
through rapid spread of mobile Internet in nonmetro and rural areas (“IAMAI says,” 2015).
Examining corporate responses to consumer
complaints is also critical because every
organization is interested in turning dissatisfied
customers into happy ones who remain loyal to
the company by continually buying its products.
55
Research also shows that “negative electronic
word-of-mouth” (NWOM) about brands have
“detrimental effects on all phases of the consumer
decision-making
process,
including
brand
evaluation, brand choice, purchase behavior and
brand loyalty” (Noort&Willemsen, 2011, p. 131).
However, before an analysis of the three cases
involving the three Indian brands, the following
section reviews literature relevant to this study.
terms of consensus for his viewpoint and the
vividness with which he presents his story, the
more likely observers were to negatively evaluate
the company and hold it accountable for the
situation. However, the researchers noted that
compared to vividness, consensus played a more
crucial role in the process thus highlighting the
need to take into account the responses of other
consumers to an online complaint message.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Thus, the online environment poses new
challenges for organizations because they not only
need to take the individual complaint into account
while framing their response but also how other
Internet users are responding to the complaint.
Publicly-posted complaints can become very
damaging when they garner support from other
consumers even as organizations have little power
to control it, especially after it has gained
momentum online.
Although research shows that negative word-ofmouth can cause substantial damage to a brand,
few studies have focused on the online context
(Lee & Song, 2010). Among them, the one
conducted by Lee and Song (2010) with 234
students from two Korean universities is highly
pertinent to this study. The researchersconducted
an experiment with these students to examine the
effect of different types of corporate response
strategies on attribution and company evaluation.
They found that consumers positively value
accommodative strategies adopted by a company
which include explanations, apology and/or
compensation offered by it. Defensive strategies,
wherein the company denied responsibility for the
event, attacked the consumer and/or shifted
blame to others, were viewed negatively by
consumers. In fact, such strategies often led the
consumer to believe that the company was at fault
(Lee & Song, 2010).
However, the researchers also caution that a
company’s corrective actions may be “considered
as accepting responsibility for the negative events,
which may provoke blame for the incidents” (Lee
& Song, 2010, p. 1079). Thus, the researchers
conclude that corporate response strategies to
online complaints can be a “double-edged sword”
as even corrective actions may not always lead to
desirable outcomes. In such a situation, they
suggest that companies should not only take the
specific complaint into account while choosing
their response strategy but also consider the views
and responses of other consumers’ on the issue
(Lee & Song, 2010).
Noort and Willemsen (2011), researchers at the
University of Amsterdam, conducted an
experimental study to identify most effective ways
in which companies can deal with negative
electronic word of mouth (NWOM) and found
that a brand is evaluated more positively when it
responds to an online outcry than when it remains
silent. The researchersalso found that how
consumers evaluated a brand’s response to online
complaints depended on whether the brand
followed a proactive or reactive “webcare”
strategy and the type of platform on which the
complaint was posted. Noort and Willemsen
(2011) defined “webcare” as “the act of engaging
in online interactions with (complaining)
consumers, by actively searching the web to
address consumer feedback (e.g., questions,
concerns and complaints)” (p. 133).
To elaborate, the researchers found that when a
brand offered reactive webcare, that is, when it
responded to NWOM after a customer explicitly
requested a response, it was viewed positively
both in consumer-generated and brand-generated
platforms. However, brands that followed
proactive webcare strategies in consumergenerated platforms were not perceived as
More specifically, Lee and Song (2010) found that
the higher level of support a consumer gets in
56
positively: “A proactive webcare response to
NWOM is unsolicited in the context of a
consumer-generated platform, thereby resulting in
less
positive
brand
evaluations”
(Noort&Willemsen, 2011, p. 138).
Conlon and Murray (1996)draw upon Greenberg’s
(1990) typology of explanations in analysing
corporate responses to product complaints. In
their response to complaints, companies may use
three types of explanations: excuses where the
company does not take any responsibility for the
situation; apology where the company both
accepts responsibility and expresses regret for the
situation; and finally, justifications where the
organization accepts responsibility but assertively
explains why it happened (Greenberg, 1990; as
cited in Conlon & Murray, 1996).
The researchers also found that a brand is
perceived more positively when it engages with
complaining consumers with a “conversational
human voice.” They pointed out that “a company
demonstrates a high level of conversational
human voice in its communications if it is open to
dialog, welcomes conversational communication,
and provides prompt feedback addressing
criticism with a direct, but uncritical manner”
(Noort&Willemsen, 2011, p. 134).
On examining company responses to customer
complaints in a field study, Conlon and Murray
(1996) found that the most frequently used
corporate response strategy combined the
“humility of an apology” with the “assertiveness
of a justification” (p. 1051). In their response to
customer complaints, organizations often asked
for more information about the situation from the
customer, asked for return for the defective
product and offered compensation, whether
partial or complete (Conlon & Murray, 1996). The
researchers also found that the more time an
organization took in responding to a consumer
complaint
adversely
affected
how
their
explanation was received.
While online environments bring up new factors
that an organization needs to consider while
responding to consumer complaints, a central
observation remains the same for both online and
offline contexts: An organization that displays
compassion and an accommodative attitude
toward the consumer in its response strategy
stands more chances of being viewed positively by
the consumer than one that does not. This
observation is common both to online and offline
environments. For instance, Coombs (1999)
conducted a study with114 crisis managers and
found that showing compassion had a positive
effect on organizational reputation in times of
crisis.
Furthermore,
Coombs
(1999)
also
emphasized that showing compassion does not
always imply taking responsibility for a crisis.
However, it does help build credibility for the
organization.
Apart from the content and timing of the
corporate response, another important category is
the medium used to deliver the message to the
consumer(s). Schultz, Utz and Göritz (2011)
examined the role of the medium in different
communication strategies and its impact on
corporate reputation and concluded that
organizations should “strategically reflect on their
media choice and the target groups’ media use”
while formulating their response to a crisis
situation (p. 26).
In another study conducted in the offline context,
Conlon and Murray (1996) examined company
responses to customer complaints among
university students. The researchers point out that
customers are not just interested in the outcome of
a particular complaint but also with the
“perceived fairness of the process used to resolve
conflicts and administer rewards” (p. 1041), an
observation made earlier by Goodwin and Ross
(1992) in their study of consumer responses to
service failures.
Drawing upon the above review of literature and
keep the purpose of this study in mind, this paper
seeks to exploreanswers to the following research
questions:
RQ1: How do Indian brands manage consumer
complaints online?
57
In continuation of my post regarding the snapdeal
issue,here's a bit of good news to talk
about!!!:)Thanks to the power of social media
websites like "FB" where nearly 19,000 people and
still counting have shared my status which made
Snapdeal sit and look up. The good news is that
Snapdeal have refunded the full amount of money
paid by me. Their media in-charge contacted me
through phone and apologized for the goof up
(Krishnamurthy, 2014).
RQ2: What factors should an organization take
into account while formulating its response to a
consumer complaint which is publicly posted on a
social media platform?
All the three case studies discussed below either
deal with allegations of a tainted product or
problematic service by a brand.
SNAPDEAL-KRISHNAMURTHY CASE
In October 2014, Mumbai-based Laxminarayan
Krishnamurthy ordered a Samsung Core Duos
phone on Snapdealas a birthday gift for his
wife.Snapdeal,an ecommerce website which
started out as a daily deals platform in 2010, has
grown to be one of the largest online market
places in India today.
Krishnamurthy’s experience with Snapdeal did
not go as expected.On October 24, 2014,
Krishnamurthy posted his ordeal with Snapdealon
his Facebook account accompanied by three vivid
photographs. He wrote:
This post also included detailed advice from
Krishnamurthy for Snapdeal. He suggested that
the specific supplier partner should be blacklisted
and that Snapdeal should have its own courier
service.
Krishnamurthy also suggested that
Snapdeal should have a quality inspection process
for the goods being sold on its website. However,
this post on the resolution of the problem was
only shared by 77 people.
Finally, on November 1, 2014, Krishnamurthy
expressed his delight, not with Snapdeal but with
Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) on his
Facebook account. HUL, which is owned by the
Anglo-Dutch company Unilever, has established
itself in India in many product categories
including food, beverages, detergents, personal
care products, water purifiers, etc. In fact, 16 of
HUL’s brands featured in the AC Nielsen Brand
Equity list of 100 Most Trusted Brands Annual
Survey in 2014 (ET Bureau, 2014). Krishnamurthy
wrote:
Had ordered a samsung mobile through snapdeal
and we got a soap bar!!!The worst customer
service ever received!!!Beware of snapdeal
guys!!it's a fraudulent e-retail company.We have
lost our money and there's been no response from
snapdeal whatsoever (Krishnamurthy, 2014).
Although Krishnamurthy’s FB profile shows he
has only 103 friends, the post was not marked to
his friends alone but was visible to the public as
well. In no time, the post went viral and was
shared by nearly 22,000 people. Many FB users
commented on Krishnamurthy’s situation,
expressing their shock and offering possible
solutions for him. Replying to a user’s comment
on October 28, 2014, Krishnamuthy wrotethat
“Snapdeal has finally promised to return the
money within 5-6 working days!!”
Thanks to the Hindustan Unilever Mumbai for
graciously presenting us with a#‎samsung‬
‬
core
duo mobile and #‎vim‬
‬
liquid soap bottles.I had
been wanting to gift this mobile to my wife during
the snapdealdiwali bumper sale.Cheers to
the #‎snapdeal‬
#soapdeal issue which has been
‬
hitting the headlines across people who relate
with this issue of ordinary people like us—
feeling excited(Krishnamurthy, 2014).
On October 31, 2014, which was an entire week
since the initial complaint was posted on
Facebook, Krishnamurthy reported that Snapdeal
had finally refunded him the money. Here’s an
excerpt from his post:
This post was accompanied by a photograph of
the letter from HUL, a Samsung Core Duo Mobile
and two bottles of Vim liquid soap. Here’s an
58
excerpt from the
Krishnamurthy:
letter
HUL
wrote
Ltd. (GCMMF), is India's largest food product
marketing organisation with an annual turnover
(2014-15) of US$ 3.4 billion.The company’s
website describes the brand in the following
words: “The Amul brand is not only a product,
but also a movement. It is in one way, the
representation of the economic freedom of
farmers. It has given farmers the courage to
dream. To hope.To live.”
The brand came under scrutiny on social media on
October 10, 2014, when NehaTomar, a senior legal
officer with a public health organization, posted
her “personal experience” with using Amul Gold
Milk on Facebook:
to
The pictures you posted online show that our
brand was used in this incident. Vim is one of our
iconic brands with some great consumer franchise.
We felt bad about it, not to mention what you
went through. Here is a small gesture from our
side to cheer you up (Rai, 2014).
HUL had been successful in showing that it cared.
It had capitalized on the incident and had not
hesitated to spend a little money to show its
goodwill. In fact, the customer care people at HUL
took care to draft a warm, non-template-like
message for Krishnamurthy. Referring to HUL’s
move, Rai commented, “This was really one epic
marketing tactic by HUL, Vim’s parent company.”
…when we started boiling the milk, within 2 min
what came out is shown in these pictures. It is
some dangerous substance that came out. I thank
to god that my family did not consumed this
milk….I request everyone to stop taking amul
milk, as we need to take strict actions to stop amul
from making this deadly milk. Please spread this
message so that respective authorities can take
strict, stringent actions against amul (Tomar,
2014).
HUL’s brand communication stands in sharp
contrast with that of Snapdeal. Rarely does a
person receive a soap bar in place of a mobile
phone.
Snapdeal
could
have
treated
Krishnamurthy’s case as an exception and gifted
him the phone or at least responded and resolved
his problem sooner. It could have sent a birthday
gift for his wife. Such a gesture would have made
Krishnamurthy praise Snapdeal on Facebook.
Instead, Krishnamurthy mentioned Snapdeal’s
promise to refund the money only as a reply to a
comment on his FB post. It was only after
Snapdeal actually refunded the amount that
Krishnamurthy posted it separately.
The post was accompanied by highly vivid
pictures of a thickstretchy substance coming out of
the boiling milk. The post received as many as
193,296 shares and 9,861 likes by September 2015.
The post also received many comments from
extremely concerned users, especially families
with children who consume Amul milk. For
instance, an user wrote, “oh my god..this is crazy
rather scary.. We all take Amul milk only..Nehapls
update on any reply you get from Amul to help
others also. thanks for sharing.”
Furthermore, it may be noted that although
Krishnamurthy was not a key influencer on
Facebook with thousands of friends and/or
followers, his post on the Snapdeal goof up was
shared by nearly 22,000 people, which highlights
how fast negative word of mouth spreads on
social
media.In
contrast,
his
post
on
Snapdeal’sapology and refunding the price of the
mobile phone was only shared by 77 people.
On
October
14,
2014,Amul
replied
to
NehaTomar’s Facebook post with a 513-word
reply accompanied by photographs and a video
(Amul, 2014). The post questioned the authenticity
of Tomar’s claims by providing detailed timelines
regarding the timing of the post and the day she
called Amul customer care with the problem. The
post further detailed that Amul customer care had
visited Tomar’s home on October 11 to investigate
the matter. On October 13, the customer care
AMUL-NEHATOMAR CASE
Amul, which markets itself as the “Taste of India,”
was founded in 1946 in Anand, a small town in
Gujarat. Amul’s marketing organization, Gujarat
Cooperative
Milk
Marketing
Federation
59
consumer.... Good they gave explaination[sic] but
saying anything about consumer is nt required...
We are consumers and have the right to raise our
voice against anything wrong.... So better no one
try to threaten us.” This comment received 163
likes and 16 replies.
representatives visited her again and informed her
that they had checked all batches of Amul milk
including the one that was alleged to be tainted
and found them to be problem free. They
alsoposted a video that explained why the process
of making cheese by boiling sour milk leads to the
formation of a “stretchy mass.”
Yet another user wrote, “serving India since six
decades still couldn't find one person who can
give a polite reply to a customer's view. Here, Ya
she may be wrong but u r not right either, not the
way u responded.” This comment received 101
likes. Yet another user pointed out that an
ordinary consumer is not supposed to know why
milk could result in a stretchy mass and that Amul
was “making the poor consumer sound like a
criminal jst coz she complained.” Such responses
that highlighted the rude tone Amul used to reply
to Tomar were very popular in terms of the
number of “likes” they received from other users.
However, Amul ended its post with accusations
against the consumer including those of
misrepresentation of facts and intention to malign
the brand:
Excerpt from Amul’s reply to Neha Tomar on
Facebook
….We do not understand that why the consumer used
her official position to make such complaint without
knowing the fact.
The customer when contacted and replacement was
provided on 11th Oct, was requested to update her post
with a clarification of her satisfaction with explanation
provided by us. However it took more than 48 hours for
the consumer to mention the same on her wall. She even
told that our officers that she will update the same post
on 13th evening. But till time of posting this, it has not
been updated with correct information. Also, the facts
have been carefully concealed by her to generate and
sustain the hype.
However, some users also pointed out that one
should be cautious while posting material that
could damage the reputation of a trusted brand.
For instance, a user commented, “I'm a regular
consumer of AMUL GOLD Milk and felt really
hurt reading such atrocious reviews. It takes years
of quality service and commitment for a brand to
stand apart from the rest. In spite of several new
players in the market, AMUL is still our most
trusted and endearing brand. Let's think twice
before tarnishing AMUL or any brand for that
matter. There's always a win-win strategy in any
situation! Jai Amul!” Another user wrote, “Perfect
example of addressing a customer complaint with
proper analysis and crisp explanation... Amul, not
just the taste but the SPIRIT OF INDIA.. Well
done..”
We wish to clarify that there has been absolutely no
problem with the fresh milk that we supply in the
market. Based on the misrepresentation of facts by the
said consumer, we infer that the expired milk used by
the complainant was deliberately abused to malign the
brand. As a brand owned by 3.5 million milk producers,
we are serving you from last six decades and we take
utmost pride in the quality that we provide to you.
This post received 6,221 likes and 3,191 shares by
September 2015.
The case study shows that Amul did a good job by
providing a detailed response based on thorough
investigation of the matter. However, one may
note that while the damaging post by Tomar was
posted on October 10, 2014, and was shared
thousands of times thereafter, Amul posted its
reply on October 14, 2014. Four days is a long time
on social media. Amul could have continually
reported every development on social media to
While many FB users expressed their satisfaction
with Amul’s detailed response and adequate
investigation of the matter, others expressed
shocked at the tone in which Amul referred to the
consumer. For instance, a female user wrote,“But
dont understand why amul is defaming this
60
Sending out a denial statement in three different
tweets is not a good way to get one’s message
across. The hashtags were also randomly chosen
in the tweets.
concerned consumers even as it investigated the
matter instead of waiting to post a detailed report
after four days. Moreover, many customers and
observers did not appreciate Amul’s use of a
combative and derogatory tone in its detailed
reply to Tomar.
Apart from tweeting its denial, Air India also
issued a press release. A comparison of the text of
the press release with that of the tweets shows that
the text in both is similar.
It is also important to note that what helped Amul
deal with the crisis effectively is its popularity
among consumers. The brand enjoys a “halo
effect” and evokes nostalgia among many
consumers. Apart from its products, the brand
continues to draw eyeballs for its advertisements
that combine a witty take on current affairs with
the promise of the brand, presented beautifully by
the ever-popular Amulmascot, a little girl in a
polka-dot dress.
Air India denies “lizard in meal tray” incident
June 15, 2015
This has reference to the news reports on various
platforms including the social media that a passenger
had found "a lizard in his/her meal tray" on board AI
111 (Delhi-London) of 11th June 2015 (Thursday),
with photograph.
Air India has investigated the "incident" and has found
it to be false and baseless. No such complaint by any
passenger of the flight has been received on board the
flight or at the Air India office in London.
AIR INDIA-LIZARD CASE
A vivid photo of a lizard poking out from under a
bun on a meal tray allegedly served on an Air
India flight went viral in mid-June 2015. However,
the origin of the photo and the first Twitter
account to post the photo was unclear (Morris,
2015). One of the tweets on the incident posted on
June 13, 2015, stated “@Rajeev_romy Air India
passenger finds lizard on in-flight meal tray seized
during Delhi-London flight ?????”(Morris, 2015).
The tweet was accompanied by the same
photograph of the lizard on the meal tray.
The same day, Air India issued a 3-part statement
on Twitter: “@Airindiain #clarification #Denial
#Air India would like to clarify that the news on
Twitter & elsewhere regarding a “lizard in meal
tray (1/3)”. The first tweet ended mid-sentence
and the second tweet followed: “@Airindiain On
board AI 111 Del-LHR of 11th June, is #false &
#baseless (2/3).” The third part of the statement,
which was posted in the third tweet, stated: “No
such complaint has been received from any
passenger on board the flight or at Air India office
in LHR (3/3)” (Morris, 2015).
Air
India
also
created
a
hashtag
#IStandwithAirIndiaon Twitter which the airline’s
customers and other users could use to tweet their
support for the airline. For instance, a user
tweeted on June 14, 2015, “@sndpdabas
#IStandwithAirIndia U served me best food, ur
hospitality is best in class ndur in-flight
entertainment is always an awesome experience.”
Several people used a nationalistic tone in their
tweets to support the airline. For instance, a user
tweeted “@real_rajiv @airindiain I am proud of
national carrier #IStandwithAirIndia.” Yet another
user tweeted “@soumitpnak…keep the flag flying
high @airindiain #IStandwithAirIndia.”
Many Indians associate Air India with the
country’s aviation history and nationalistic goals
and the airline leverages such emotions well. In
fact, an excerpt from the “About Air India” section
in the press release also shows how nationalistic
premise is built into the brand: “Air India occupies
a special place in the global and Indian aviation
scenario. It pioneered the aviation in India and its
history is synonymous with the history of civil
aviation in India. Air India is not a mere airline
While Air India did a brilliant job by first taking
up the issue on the social media platform where it
was brought up, what the social media team at the
organization need to understand is that following
a press release format for tweets will not help.
61
baggage and
discusses key
directly dealing with a product complaint from a
specific consumer as much as containing the
damage caused by what seemed like a hoax
picture going viral.
Every consumer complaint, whether posted in an
online public forum or not, presents an
opportunity for a brand to positively engage with
its customers. However, as emphasized by Conlon
and Murray (1996), consumers are not just
interested in the “outcome” of their complaint
alone. They are also evaluating the brand by the
process it uses to reach a resolution, if any, and the
nature of its interactions with the complaining
consumer. Nate Bennett and Chris Martin, both
researchers in the United States, explain that in
order to successfully deal with customer
dissatisfaction expressed online, companies need
to work along principles of fairness:
Beyond the frustration they encounter when a
product fails to meet expectations, customers
share a multidimensional sense of indignation
when they feel mistreated. We have found that
consumers in fact evaluate the distributive,
procedural and interactional fairness of a transaction.
Companies can please or disgruntle consumers
along any or all of these dimensions (Bennett &
Martin, 2007).
In the quest to quell customer dissatisfaction,
Noort&Willemsen (2011) also emphasize the
importance of brands displaying a “conversational
human voice” in their interaction with
complaining consumers. Tweets that sound
scripted or similar to the format of a traditional
press release may not work on social media.
And,that is exactly what happened in the Air
India case where the organization’s response
tweets denying the presence of a lizard on the
meal tray appeared canned. The tweetswere
neither precise nor conversational.
that transports passengers,
cargo.” The following section
takeaways from the three cases.
DISCUSSION
In contrast, McDonald’s response to the “Seriously
McDonald’s” hoax picture that went viral in 2011
shows that a brand can issue a strong denial in 140
characters. The photograph, which showed a sign
on the window of a McDonald’s restaurant,
claimed that McDonald followed racist policies
and charged extra from African Americans. In
response, McDonald’s denial tweet stated: "That
pic is a senseless & ignorant hoax. McD's values
ALL our customers. Diversity runs deep in our
culture on both sides of the counter”(“McDonald’s
issues,” 2011).While Barger (2011) points out that
McDonald’s could have individualized their
statement better and posted it on multiple social
media platforms and not just on Twitter, he also
praises the brand for the nature of its response:
“McDonalds’ response was adequately indignant,
made clear their position on the rumor, and
reaffirmed the company’s commitment to
diversity. It was a textbook statement on how to
respond to a rumor in 140 characters.”
The three case studies discussed above illuminate
how each brand negotiated this complex process
along multiple dimensions. For instance, while
Amul displayed a certain degree of “procedural
fairness” by investigating the matter thoroughly, it
did not show “interactional fairness” as the nature
of its interactions with the consumer were rude
and accusatory, as pointed out by other Facebook
users observing the exchange. Moreover, Amul
waited for four days before it posted its final reply
instead of continually keeping consumers
informed about the steps it was taking to
investigate the accusations made against it.
Meanwhile, Snapdealdamaged perceptions of
“distributive fairness” which refers to how the
customer evaluates the outcome of the complaint
and related interaction. In case of Air India,
however, the goal was slightly different. Unlike in
the case of Snapdeal and Amul, Air India was not
Tellingly, the case studies also highlight the
importance of the medium in drafting corporate
response strategies to negative electronic word-ofmouth.Since the complainant posted the lizard
picture on Twitter, Air India responded on Twitter
as well. It also posted a press release on its
website. In the Amul-NehaTomar case too, since
the complainant posted her grievance on
62
While Amul and Air India responded in a timely
and resolute manner, Snapdeal took a much
longer time to respond to the complainant. And,
even when it did respond, the nature of its
response was inadequate and unimpressive.
Goodwin and Ross (1992) emphasize the
importance of a service provider offering some
tangible remedy such as a freebie or a discount
along with an apology for better results.Snapdeal
could have been quick in refunding the consumer
and provided a discount on further purchases. The
ecommerce company did not take into account the
fact that the consumer had ordered the cell phone
as a birthday gift for his wife. Instead, Snapdeal
not only delayed the refund, it also let HUL
benefit from the situation by offering a free cell
phone to the consumer and earning positive
reviews by displaying concern for the consumer.
Facebook, Amul responded on the same platform
as well. However, responding on the same
platform in which the complaint was posted may
not be enough. Barger (2011) suggests that a multichannel response is essential to contain damage to
a brand:
…you have to ditch the old mindset that a
significant and multi-channel response just stokes
a fire or brings it to the attention of people who
hadn’t heard it yet; your new goal should be that
whichever network or channel a consumer or
customer chooses to get information on the
situation, they will see your response (Barger,
2011).
Apart from using multiple channels, brands also
need to be vivid and persuasive in their responses.
In all the three cases analysed above, complaining
consumers shared vivid photographs and
accompanying descriptive information on social
media which helped persuade other consumers to
identify with their plight and the perceived
wrong-doing by the brand. Therefore, brands need
to be even more persuasive in their response
strategies in order to retain customer loyalty and
trust.
The role played by HUL in the Snapdeal case also
shows that while framing their corporate response
strategies, firms need to consider how other
brands indirectly related to the situation are
reacting to the dynamic and constantly-evolving
scenario. Here’s another case where a brand that is
indirectly mentioned in a consumer complaint
benefited from the situation by acting swiftly and
helping out the consumer in a public forum: In
July 2009, United Airlines lost 10% of its share
value, an overwhelming $180 million, after a littleknown Canadian musician Dave Carroll blamed
the company on YouTube for breaking his Taylor
guitar and refusing to give compensation (Wrenn,
2009). Carroll’s song titled “United Breaks
Guitars” went viral on YouTube and had been
viewed more than 15 million times by September
2015.
In the Amul-NehaTomar case, Amul responded to
the complaining consumer’s post which was
accompanied by four photographs by posting a
video along with a detailed reply.Amul’s video
demonstratedwhy making cheese from sour milk
can result in a “stretchy mass.” This gave
observers and other Facebook users a chance to
understand the phenomenon and take an
independent decision on the issue.Amul’s video
had been viewed nearly 104,000 times by
September 2015. In the case of Air India, the
company’s strategy to get its customers and
supporters
to
tweet
with
the
hashtag
“#IStandforAirIndia” was aimed at persuading its
target audience to dismiss the photograph of the
lizard on the meal tray and believe in the brand
instead. Customer tweets in support of Air India
were conversational in nature and added
credibility to the brand.
Just as HUL capitalized on the SnapdealKrishnamurthy case, Taylor Guitars, which was
referenced in the musician’s video, gave him two
new guitars and posted their own YouTube video
on the incident (Tran, 2009). This 2-minute video
depicts Bob Taylor, co-founder of Taylor Guitars,
showing support for people whose guitars have
been broken in similar circumstances and offers
free advice on how to keep guitars safe during
travel. The video had been viewed more than
63
700,000 times by September 2015. Like HUL,
Taylor Guitars also made the most of the situation
and earned positive reviews for the brand.
online complaint by evoking feelings of nostalgia
of a bygone era, newer brands will need to work
harder in terms of establishing credibility in the
context of online consumer complaints.However,
as evident in the Amul-NehaTomar case, even
well-known brands need to exercise care in terms
of the tone they adopt in their responses to
complaints posted on social media since a
belittling tone can bring instant criticism from
other consumers.
Thus, it is important that brands not view their
online
customer
relationship
management
activitiesas containment of bad news alone.
Instead, as Tom Farmer (2007) points out, brands
“should harness the power of the customer’s
online voice in a proactive, pulse-taking manner.”
Successful and timely resolution of online
complaints can reinforce customer loyalty and
spread positive electronic word of mouth (Hong &
Lee, 2005; as cited in Noort&Willemsen, 2011).
Apart from retaining customers, successful online
brand interventions can also help “in leveraging
the power of the collective to build brand equity”
(Noort&Willemsen, 2011, p. 131-132).
CONCLUSION
To conclude, ananalysis of the three cases studies
shows that while these brands made several
correct moves in their attempt to manage the
negative word-of-mouth on social media, they
need to take an entire range of factors into account
while formulating their response strategies to
online consumer complaints. Since consumers
constantly evaluate a brand along multiple
dimensions, organizations need to adhere to
principles of fairnesswhile dealing with them.
Further, Indian brands have to get more adept in
their usage of social media in terms of using both a
conversational and polite tone while interacting
with complaining consumers, especially in a
public forum.
Moreover, once negative news spreads or a
consumer complaint goes viral, firms need to post
their persuasive, vivid and impactful responses on
multiple media channels and social media
platforms. They should not let other brands
capitalize on the not-so-pleasant online exchange
between them and an upset consumer. Finally,
Indian brands need to broaden their goal of online
customer complaint management from mere
containment of negative news to using the
opportunity for improved customer loyalty and
brand equity.
Brands also need to get better at segmenting
customers and determining their value to the firm.
A customer who is a key influencer and has high
“historical and predicted future value” to a
company needs to be managed very well (Farmer,
2007). In the Snapdeal case, the complaining
consumer,LaxminarayanKrishnamurthy,
is
a
Central Bank of India employee. In the Amul case,
the complainant, NehaTomar,is a senior legal
officer at the Public Health Foundation of India, a
public-private initiative in the health sector. Both
happen to be consumers whose claimspeople are
likely to believe.Finally, brands also need to figure
out how to disengage with a customer who often
causes trouble. As Farmer (2007) says, “Knowing
which [customer] to ignore is as important as
knowing which to pamper.”
The cases also highlight the fact that while longstanding Indian brands such as Amul and Air
India can leverage their “halo effect” in case of an
REFERENCES
Amul (2014, October 14). Facebook.com. Retrieved from
https://www.facebook.com/amul.coop/posts/10152
808817269446
Air India denies “lizard in meal tray” incident (2015, June
15). AirIndia.in. Retrieved from
http://www.airindia.in/newsdetail.htm?564
64
Barger, C. (2011, June 17). Six steps to fighting Internet
rumors. Forbes.com. Retrieved from
http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherbarger
/2011/06/17/six-steps-to-fighting-internetrumors/
Bennett, N. & Martin, C. (2007, December). Case
Commentary: The Customers’ Revenge. Harvard
Business Review. Retrieved from www.hbr.org
Conlon, D.E. & Murray, N. M. (1996, August). Customer
perceptions of corporate responses to product
complaints: The role of explanations. The Academy
of Management Journal, 39(4), 1040-1056.
Coombs, T.W. (1999). Information and compassion in crisis
responses: A test of their effects. Journal of Public
Relations Research, 11(2), 125-142.
ET Bureau (2014, October 22) India’s most trusted brands of
2014. Economic Times. Retrieved from
http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/201
4-10-22/news/55318723_1_trusted-brands-surveybrand-equity-dettol
Farmer, T. (2007, December). Case Commentary: The
Customers’ Revenge. Harvard Business Review.
Retrieved from www.hbr.org
Goodwin, C. & Ross, I. (1992). Consumer responses to
service failures: Influence of procedural and
interactional fairness perceptions. Journal of
Business Research, 25, 149-163.
Greenberg, J. (1990). Looking fair vs. being fair: Managing
impressions of organizational justice.In B.M.
Staw&L.L. Cummings. (Eds.). Research in
organizational behavior, 12, (pp. 111-157).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Hennig-Thurau, T., et al. (2010).The impact of new media on
customer relationships.
Journal of Service
Research, 13(3), 311-330.
Hong, Y. & Lee, W. (2005).Consumer complaint behavior in
the online environment. In Y.Gao (Ed.). Web system
design and online consumer behavior(pp. 90-105).
Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.
IAMAI says India will have 500 million Internet users by
2017. (2015, July 21). The Indian Express.Retrieved
from
http://indianexpress.com/article/technology/tec
h-news technology/iamai-says-india-to-have-236million-mobile-internet-users-by-2016/
Krishnamurthy, L. (2014, October 24). Facebook.com. Retrieved from
https://www.facebook.com/laxminarayan.krishnamurthy.1
/posts/612369985551587
Lee, Y.L. & Song, S. (2010). An empirical investigation of electronic
word-of-mouth: Informational motive and corporate
response strategy. Computers in Human
Behavior. 26,
1073-1080.
Morris, H. (2015, June 15). Lizard in meal tray: Air India fiercely
denies social media claims. The
Telegraph.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/1
1675148/Lizard-in-meal-tray-Air-India-fiercely-deniessocial-media-claims.html
Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. (n.d.)
Organisation. Amul.com Retrieved from
http://www.amul.com/m/organisation
McDonald's issues Twitter denial after hoax poster saying blacks
will be charged extra goes viral (2011, June 13). Daily Mail.
Retrieved from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article2002998/McDonalds-Twitter-denial-blacks-charged-extrahoax-poster-goes-viral.html
Noort, G. &Willemsen, L.M. (2011). Online damage control: The
effects of proactive versus reactive webcare interventions
in consumer-generated and brand-generated platforms.
Journal of Interactive Marketing, 26, 131-140.
Rai, M. (2014, November 3). HUL teaches Snapdeal an epic
marketing lesson. Retrieved from
http://www.socialsamosa.com/2014/11/hul-teachessnapdeal-marketing-lessons/
Schultz, F., Utz, S. &Göritz, A. (2011). Is the medium the message?
Perceptions of and reactions to crisis communication via
twitter, blogs and traditional media.Public Relations Review,
37, 20-27.
Tomar, N. (2014, October 10). Facebook.com. Retrieved
fromhttps://www.facebook.com/neha.tomar.39/posts/101
52355551565785
Tran, M. (2009, July 23). Singer gets his revenge on United Airlines
and soars to fame. The Guardian.Retrieved from
http://www.theguardian.com/news/blog/2009/jul/23/yo
utube-united-breaks-guitars-video
Ward, J.C. &Ostrom, A.L. (2006). Complaining to the masses: The
role of protest framing in customer-created complaint
Websites.Journal of Consumer Research, 33(2), 220 230.
Wrenn, E. (2009, July 24). The sweet music of revenge.The Daily Mail.
Retrieved from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article1201671/Singer-Dave-Carroll-pens-YouTube-hit-UnitedAirlines-breaks-guitar--shares-plunge-10.html
65