With the advent of social media, it has never been easier for consumers to interact with companies. An Experience Matters post a few weeks ago by Jeana Anderson showed how a couple simple tweets turned into an extraordinary experience. However, companies must be careful when using social media, because while good personal interactions can become extraordinary, bad personal interactions can become disastrous.
Curious’ recent research using our online community ShopTalk touched on why people choose to boycott companies. We found that boycotts which stem from bad personal interactions with companies are far more powerful than boycotts that arise from social or political scandals, as the case with BP or Nike.
About half of our members boycotted a company based on the company’s social practices or political views. Members talked about boycotting companies like Wal-Mart, based on their employment practices or Citgo-gas because of its ownership by “enemy of America” Venezuela. The other half boycotted a company based on a bad personal experience, such as terrible customer service. It was the first time I’d heard of Denny’s, Barnes and Noble, and Suave being boycotted.
Even though the reasons for boycotting were split down the middle, we noticed very different attitudes toward the boycotts. Consumers who refused to buy from companies based on social or political events were far more likely to later abandon their boycott. On the other hand, those who felt personally slighted were adamant that they will keep their boycott going forever.
Consumers who boycotted companies because of political views relied heavily on external information to form their opinions and make the decision to boycott. However, once the scandal stopped being covered in the news, many felt that the company had improved their practices or that the issue had been resolved. For example, a couple of people said they initially boycotted Nike, but later ceased their boycott because they hadn’t heard anything in the news and assuming that Nike had rectified the situation. Other people talked about doubting the accuracy of second hand information as reason for ending their boycotts. In fact, about a quarter actually said they had given up their boycott and started buying from the company again. Since they weren’t personally affected by the actions of the companies, many were less committed to their boycotts.
It’s a completely different story for personal boycotts. Often these respondents were victims of appalling customer service and most held a personal vendetta against the company as a result. One member had a bad experience with an airline and after complaining by email to the company and not hearing a response, she now refuses to fly with the airline ever again. With personal boycotts, only 12% of our members started buying from the company again. A full two-thirds said they would never buy from the company again, no matter what the company did to try to correct their mistake, whereas only quarter of people with political boycotts said they would never buy from the company again.
Not much can be done for those with personal boycotts, but social media can help prevent these boycotts from forming. People are now taking to social media to voice displeasure about bad customer experiences, as Jeana did when she tweeted about Charter Communications. Monitoring the Twitter sphere, Charter was able to intercept Jeana and solve her problem, before her displeasure turned into a boycott. By immediately dealing with customer complaints, companies can turn a negative situation into an extraordinary experience.
