kno wle dge .whart o n.upe nn.e du http://kno wledge.wharto n.upenn.edu/article/finding-co mpanys-co ntro versy-sweet-spo t/

Finding Your Company’s ‘Controversy Sweet Spot’
Dec 05, 2013 Research No rth America

Market ing

As the saying goes, there’s no such thing as bad publicity. Extend the aphorism, and there is no such thing as bad controversy — especially if that controversy causes conversation. By that thinking, any buzzgenerating event, even if wrapped around something less than wholesome, should be a positive f or a company or brand looking to get some attention. But Wharton marketing prof essor Jonah Berger says that’s not the case. Instead, he has f ound that there is a limit to how much conversation can be generated by a modest amount of controversy. Increase the controversy, however, and the volume of conversation goes down — exactly the opposite of what a good brand manager wants. “T hey assume that controversy garners discussion,” he says. “We actually f ound out it’s more complicated than that.” Berger and Z oey Chen, a marketing doctoral student at the Scheller College of Business at the Georgia Institute of Technology, discuss these f indings in the paper, “When, Why, and How Controversy Causes Conversation,” published in the October edition of the Journal of Consumer Research. Berger and Chen set up a series of experiments to judge the relationship between controversy and conversation. First, they collected about 200 articles posted on Topix.com, an online news resource, and coded how controversial each was using two independent raters. T hey then cataloged the number of comments each article received in its f irst 15 days online. T he initial experiment showed a correlation between controversial topics and online comments up to a moderate level of controversy — a 4.6 on a seven-point scale, to be exact. Articles with higher levels of controversy attracted f ewer comments, on average, than those in the mid-range.

Berger’s theory was that discomfort should play less of a dampening role on a controversial discussion if “social acceptance concerns” are reduced by talking with a friend or loved one.

Work then moved to the lab, where experiments were set up to judge participants on the level of discomf ort they reported af ter discussing controversial topics. T he results were similar to the analysis of the online comment levels. Relationships Matter T he next step was to examine the role of anonymity in discussing controversial topics. Since such topics can be uncomf ortable to talk about, Berger and Chen write, they wanted to examine if discomf ort would be decreased when the conversation was done anonymously. Participants in an online study were randomly assigned a controversy level (low vs. moderate vs. high) and asked to list one broad topic and three subtopics that would vary in their levels of controversy. T hey were then told that they would be engaging in an online chat on the topic; some were told that their screen names were untraceable and that no personal inf ormation would be disclosed. Others were told that their real name would be visible. “When people do not have to reveal their identity, moderate controversy increases conversation because it increases interest without increasing discomf ort,” Berger and Chen write of the results. “When people have to reveal [their] identity, however, controversy f ails to increase, and actually decreases, conversation because it makes people f eel uncomf ortable.” Next was a look at the closeness of a relationship in the dynamic between controversy and comf ort. Berger’s theory was that discomf ort should play less of a dampening role on a controversial discussion if “social acceptance concerns” are reduced by talking with a f riend or loved one. Indeed, the researchers f ound that controversy increased the likelihood of discussion among f riends. “T he ef f ect of controversy … is driven primarily by interest, with discomf ort yielding little ef f ect,” Berger and Chen write. “Consequently, moderate and high levels of controversy increase the likelihood of conversation.”

“… Companies are trying to figure out how to generate word of mouth because it is 10 times more effective than traditional advertising.” –Jonah Berger

Since strangers don’t have a sense of an individual’s values and tastes, Berger says controversial topics are more likely to be unsaf e ground f or discussion. “At the core, the key [question] is … how will talking about an issue af f ect how people see me?” But if the strangers aren’t entering each other’s social or prof essional circle — if , indeed, they are unlikely ever to meet again, or at all in the case of an online comment board — there could be a saf ety ef f ect similar to what was observed with conversations between f riends, Berger notes. “If I don’t know you very well, I may be worried … about bringing up uncomf ortable things,” he says. “Because you don’t know them that well, there is a greater chance of a negative impact f rom controversy. But if I never see you again, it doesn’t matter as much in that situation.” T he Capacity for Controversy T he experiments showed all controversy is not created equal, and dif f erent levels of controversy have dif f erent ef f ects on personal discomf ort, which, in turn, dampens the conversation, Berger notes.

So should companies avoid even the hint of controversy altogether, since it can have such a negative ef f ect? No, Berger says, because word of mouth has proven to be such a valuable branding tool. “As I talk about in my book, Contagious: Why Things Catch On, companies are trying to f igure out how to generate word of mouth because it is 10 times more ef f ective than traditional advertising,” he points out. “Word of mouth increases sales, speeds product adoption, and has a host of other benef its. It’s more ef f icient and more ef f ective.”

“Advertising companies love to do controversial things once in a while, especially when they’re sexy and fun. But when is it effective and not effective?” –Jonah Berger

For every brand, the right level of controversy will f all at a dif f erent place. Kmart, f or example, got pushback over its online-only “Ship My Pants” campaign that played of f the tagline’s close pronunciation to an of f -color phrase. But MT V soaked in every bit of controversy during this year’s Video Music Awards show, when pop star Miley Cyrus perf ormed a risque dance number and used a f oam f inger to get acquainted with f ellow pop star Robin T hicke’s nether regions. T he Kmart controversy would have been a blip on MT V’s radar, Berger says, but Miley Cyrus gyrating on the f loor of a Kmart would have set that chain’s radar screen on f ire. “Advertising companies love to do controversial things once in a while, especially when they’re sexy and f un,” Berger notes. “But when is it ef f ective and not ef f ective? To get it, you have to understand why people share. “T he middle end of that scale is the sweet spot,” he continues. “Bef ore you decide if you should get more controversial [in your advertising], you really want to go about getting some sense of where you are on that vibe.”