You have been researching harmful interactions in online brand communities for over ten years now. What originally sparked your interest in this topic?
Like many researchers, my interest started with observing something that didn't quite fit the mainstream narrative. Social media was being celebrated as a space where brands and consumers could engage positively, but I kept seeing disturbing patterns — people attacking each other over brand-related topics: product choices, lifestyles, or a brand's social stance. It became clear that brands unintentionally serve as platforms for social conflicts. This drew me into studying what we now call brand cyberbullying: incidents of bullying between people in online brand communities. Over the years, this has developed into a long-term research program, working with both academic partners and major brands to understand how conflicts and bullying behaviors emerge, how widespread they are, and—critically—how brands can respond constructively.
Why do you suggest that brands have a responsibility to manage conflicts on their social media pages?
In many ways, brands have become digital community hosts. Millions of consumers gather daily on corporate social media accounts such as the TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, or X profiles of Nike, Gucci, Costa Coffee, Liverpool Football Club, and many others — not just to follow the brand, but to debate social topics, express values, or explain how they view the brand's standpoint on a sensitive issue. When harmful conflicts occur in these communities, they affect real people's wellbeing. At the same time, brands benefit commercially from these communities through engagement, loyalty, and visibility. Given that brands voluntarily create and manage these digital spaces, they hold both a social and business responsibility to ensure that harmful behavior is addressed. Ignoring such conflicts is no longer a neutral position. As society demands greater corporate responsibility in areas like sustainability, equality, and online safety, the expectation for brands to manage harmful conflicts has become part of broader CSR and digital wellbeing obligations.
What is the link between brands and online bullying?
At the core is social identity. Brands have become powerful identity symbols. Owning a luxury handbag or supporting a football club isn't just about consumption — it signals belonging, values, even social status. When people strongly identify with brands, these affiliations can trigger conflict. For example, someone may attack others who support a rival brand. People may mock those who can't afford luxury products. Disputes can also emerge over a brand's social positions, such as LGBTQ rights, sustainability, or cultural issues. My research shows that materialistic life aspirations, social comparison, and identity defense often fuel these bullying behaviors. What starts as brand engagement can easily spill into aggression, harassment, and systematic trolling, especially when brands take public positions on social issues that their global audiences may not universally support.
How common are conflicts on social media brand pages?
While most brand interactions are positive, the scale of harmful content is not trivial. Across several industries, we find that around 1–6% of all comments on brand pages contain harmful content. On average, a typical retail brand page might experience 30 conflicts per month, though some reach as high as 160 per month. When conflicts turn into bullying, their impact on individuals is severe. Our studies show a 75.8% decrease in individual well-being, reflected in elevated stress, anxiety, and depressive symptoms. Even mild conflicts — seemingly harmless jokes, banter, or constructive criticism — can have such an effect if taken out of context or read by someone vulnerable.
What makes this type of conflict particularly difficult for brands to handle?
Several factors contribute to the challenge. A global brand's community includes people with very different norms about what's acceptable. Brands promote social causes like equality or sustainability, but not all customers agree with these positions. Consumers may also resist moderation, seeing it as censorship, while poor moderation can lead to reputational or even regulatory consequences. This creates a high-stakes dilemma: when to step in, how to intervene, and how to preserve both brand values and open discussion.
Can't brands simply remove all harmful comments and avoid the problem?
Full removal is not a realistic solution. While some extreme content — such as threats, harassment, or illegal hate speech — requires immediate removal, blanket censorship often backfires. Consumers may see it as authoritarian, it can fuel accusations of bias or selective enforcement, and it may suppress healthy debate on complex social issues. Effective moderation requires nuanced, evidence-based approaches — knowing when to step in, what tone to adopt, and how to maintain community trust.
To what extent can brands rely on AI tools to detect and handle harmful online comments?
AI tools are advancing and can help with detecting extreme forms of hate. But they struggle with context: sarcasm, passive aggression, and microaggressions often slip through. Subtle harm like gaslighting, exclusion, and coded language are also difficult for algorithms, and global brands face vastly different social norms across countries. Moreover, many AI tools measure likes or sentiment, rather than real behaviours, well-being, and brand loyalty. Even state-of-the-art systems require human oversight and specialist expertise to interpret complex, identity-driven conflicts. Relying solely on AI risks both under-moderating and over-censoring.
How can your research help brands address harmful conflicts and online hate?
We've developed scientifically tested tools that help brands assess what kind of topics cause conflicts on their social media pages and their impact. They also help design moderation messages that improve user wellbeing, trust, and brand image, allow for virtual testing of interventions before going live to reduce reputational risk, and support content teams through evidence-based best practices. Rather than relying on guesswork or crisis-driven reactions, brands gain data-driven confidence in managing difficult situations.
What kind of content requires active moderation, and what kind of debate can be left alone?
Generally, personal attacks, harassment, threats, and severe offensive content require active intervention. On the other hand, respectful disagreements, critical but civil discussions, and mild banter often do not. In fact, allowing some constructive debate can strengthen community engagement — provided boundaries are clear and well-managed. The key is precision moderation: targeted, proportionate, and aligned with brand values.
How can a brand authentically take a stand on sensitive issues in line with its brand values?
Authenticity requires consistency — CSR positions must align with the brand's long-term values, not short-term marketing trends. Transparency is important: brands need to explain why they support certain causes. Preparedness is also key, anticipating which issues may generate backlash and planning moderation accordingly. Finally, responses should remain respectful, informative, and empathetic, even when moderating conflicts. Consumers reward brands that act with genuine conviction, fairness, and clarity.
Can brand purpose and social campaigns inspire consumers and employees to take positive action against bullying behaviors?
Yes. When handled well, brand interventions don't just protect their communities — they can model pro-social behaviors by encouraging respectful bystander interventions, empowering employees and customers to uphold community standards, and promoting empathy and tolerance around complex social issues. Brands are uniquely positioned to amplify social norms about what is, and is not acceptable — but only if they lead by example.
What incentives do brands have to invest in better conflict management and moderation?
Beyond reputational protection, better moderation improves user wellbeing by lowering stress and creating a better community atmosphere. It strengthens brand loyalty as users trust brands that protect their community. It also reduces legal risk, especially as online harms regulation tightens, and demonstrates data-driven CSR leadership and commitment to digital wellbeing. In short, better moderation delivers both social and commercial value.
What other questions are you currently exploring with your research team?
We're currently studying how corporate CSR communications themselves sometimes trigger unintended conflicts, developing effective brand value assessment tools that can be applied for tailored community management, and exploring how unions, NGOs, and regulators can support better online community health. We aim to build not only brand-level solutions but cross-sector partnerships for digital wellbeing.
How can brands, NGOs, or policymakers interested in your work get involved?
Very simply: get in touch. I'm open to partnerships for pilot studies and virtual experiments, staff training and capacity building, and advisory collaborations for complex CSR or conflict management projects. Brands who act now have a real opportunity to position themselves as leaders in digital responsibility and social sustainability.