But be careful not to step on your own foot. You don’t want a cat fight to turn into a tiger fight.
Conflict is something marketers usually shun when managing their brand community. Nobody wants quarrels and disputes – they spell for trouble. Nevertheless, there have been successes of brands building their communities by inspiring conflicts here and there, which makes us question again: Is conflict really that bad?
Conflicts are nasty, whoever want them on voluntary basis! Right…... ?
Wrong. Inflicting debates and mild conflicts has been used quite often by brands, in fact. These days, many brands with online presence utilize quizzes and voting sessions on Instagram Stories as a tool to actively create intense debates and so (Boland 2019). The same technique is also used a lot on other online community platforms like Facebook fan pages. According to Boland (2019) from PR Daily, such heated discussions are good materials to encourage more interaction and engagement between the brand and its followers, as well as between the brand community members themselves. For instance, online publishers like Buzzfeed, Bleach Report or GQ commonly use conflict-aspiring tactic to spark excitement among fans and get them to share their thoughts about everything from soccer team uniforms to personality quizzes and fashion advices.
This practice of flaring internal dispute to develop brand community has also been given a nod by scholars on the academic side. Against the prevalent belief that conflict is something brands should avoid at all cost, Fournier and Lee (2009) suggest that smart companies should embrace disputes in order to make their communities thrive. Arguments and disputes are the ways for community members to define their identity, which is essential in any community, not to say brand communities. As a matter of fact, conflict is the norm in a political-nature entity like a community, and brands that tried to smooth over internal conflicts in the past did not meet very pretty consequences (Fournier and Lee, 2009).
Sometimes the conflict tactic expands beyond the internal border of one brand community and becomes brand rivalry. Fournier and Lee (2009) stated that brand rivalry build on the idea of “in” group and “out” group, or to put it more simply: “us” against “them”. Defining the line and emphasizing contrasts and conflicts between different groups of brand followers will strengthen the unity of each group, and Ewing et al. (2013) fully agree on this. Ewing et al. (2013) also added that the rivalry will automatically take place in some forms even if the brands do not voluntarily act on it.
However, all the good talks about conflict does not mean that they are all good and pretty things. Conflicts can be quite nasty once it gets out of control. Ewing et al. (2013) discussed in their article that once the disputes become too intense, toxic behaviors such as ridicule, degenerative languages, malice and insults will surface among community members. Thus, it is better to monitor disputes closely and be sensitive of the thin line where they start to get ugly.
A particular industry where conflict-aspiring method being used very often is sports marketing, where competition and opposition are common between fans of different teams or players. Figure 1 shows a post from AFF Suzuki Cup (an ASEAN football tournament) featuring a voting poll between two players, and this is not the first time they use this kind of content. So far, the tactic has been used several times to draw engagement and discussions between fans during the low seasons. Nevertheless, AFF has been very careful and never directly compare players from two different countries to avoid inflicting serious fight between national fans.
In the field of brand rivalry, perhaps one of the most classic rivalries with a long-known history is Coke vs. Pepsi. Both brands have been using a consistent light, funny tone in their rivalry advertising campaigns (Bhasin, 2013) to cleverly navigate part of the tension and keep it as a friendly, entertaining competition (at least that’s what it looks like on the media). Figure 2 is a typical example of a funny back-and-forth ad competition between Coke and Pepsi during 2013 Halloween. This is a win-win strategy as both Coke and Pepsi succeed in gaining attention and entertaining their followers as well as the public.
So there you go, you have your answer: Conflict is not always bad. Using it right, conflict will be a great ally on the side of marketers and advertisers. One last friendly tip for the marketers though: using conflict in brand community building is like playing with fire. Conflict is beautiful, but also dangerous – and most importantly: don’t let it burn you.
References:
Bhasin, H. (2013). Coke vs Pepsi in 7 print ads. Marketing91. [online]. Retrieved from https://www.marketing91.com/coke-vs-pepsi-in-7-print-ads/
Boland, G. (2019). 10 ways to craft compelling Snapchat and Instagram Stories. PR Daily. [online]. Retrieved from https://www.prdaily.com/10-ways-to-craft-compelling-snapchat-and-instagram-stories/
Ewing, M., Wagstaff, P., Powell, I. (2013). Brand rivalry and community conflict. Journal of Business Research 66 (2013), 4–12.
Fournier, S., Lee, L. (2009). Getting Brand Communities Right. Harvard Business Review, 87(4), 105–111.