Here’s how consumers react when they feel ‘betrayed’ by a brand

Inauthenticity occurs when a brand behaves in a way that appears to go against its perceived core values, or the consumer’s baseline expectations for that brand. 

“This kind of inauthenticity causes problems for brand managers because for each person it’s a little bit different, and that makes it really hard to navigate,” Hoppner explains. 

In their recently published paper in the Journal of Product & Brand Management, Hoppner and Abratt trace the emotional cause-and-effect of brand inauthenticity, offering insight into this hard-to-quantify phenomenon. The paper was co-authored by Ryan White of Winona State University, also in the US. 

Just over 200 respondents were asked to write about an experience of brand inauthenticity and answer a series of questions about that experience and steps they took afterward. The results were analysed in light of concepts drawn from psychological research, such as appraisal theory and balance theory. 

The survey responses showed that customers experienced brand inauthenticity as a betrayal of sorts, with emotional implications comparable to those of human-to-human betrayal. 

Brand inauthenticity triggered a complex mix of emotional responses in consumers. Anger, anxiety and disappointment were the principal motifs across the sample – but individual reactions could include one, two, or even all three. The strength of reactive emotions varied according to the perceived severity of the betrayal. 

The three main emotional responses 

The researchers also found that the three main emotional responses led to different behaviours in consumers. 

Abratt and Hoppner describe anger as a ‘hot emotion’, causing consumers to lash out at brands deemed inauthentic through retaliation, complaints and withdrawal of loyalty. 

Anxiety inspired a less accusatory and more questioning response, as consumers groped for the deeper truth about this apparently two-faced brand. “Anxiety is very ambiguous,” Hoppner says. “When we’re anxious, it’s often because we don’t really know what happened, why it happened, who’s to blame, etc.”  

Interestingly, consumers made anxious by brand inauthenticity actually increased their loyalty to the brand, and sought out more information to resolve the ambiguity. 

Finally, disappointment led consumers to lapse into a self-protective passivity. Their central concern became not closure or redress, but rather avoiding further disappointment by turning their back on the offending brand. 

Abratt and Hoppner advise brand managers to think twice before launching a standard response in hopes of winning back consumers alienated by perceived inauthenticity.  

Anger and anxiety show up very differently, and disappointment may not show up at all in any conventionally measurable way. When addressing inauthenticity after the fact, a brand’s best bet may be to ask questions and listen closely before attempting to fix the problem. 

“I think the real issue for firms is to understand who they are,” Abratt states. “In other words, brands have to talk about their identity. And once they have figured that one out, they have to have training among their employees and say ‘this is what we stand for. This is what we do’. Communicate that to your markets and your community, and make sure that you allow the community and customers to talk back with you.” 

You can find out more about the research here.