Who defends brands online – and why?

Some time ago, we had an interesting conversation with a marketing manager from Nestlé. He told us that, in its early days, Nespresso was often defended by hardcore fans whenever the brand was attacked in online forums. Back then, Nespresso didn’t need crisis or social media managers because the fans defended the brand on their own initiative.

This fascinating observation inspired us to take a closer look at a key question: Who actually defends brands online – and why?

A striking example that illustrates this phenomenon comes from the world of sports:
Several years ago, Nike faced heavy criticism when basketball player Zion Williamson from Duke University suffered a knee injury during a game after his Nike shoe tore apart. While many media outlets reported negatively and some consumers mocked the incident, others publicly defended Nike.

Some argued that even the slightest manufacturing defect could cause such an incident when combined with a player's high body weight and the fast-paced nature of basketball. Others defended Nike based on their own positive experiences with the brand.

Have you ever defended a brand? Why?
Why do people expose themselves to public criticism just to stand up for a brand? These are exactly the questions we explored in our research.

To systematically investigate this phenomenon, we conducted several studies. First, we carried out an extensive online content analysis, through which we identified different styles of brand defence. It became clear that brand defenders use a range of strategies—from emotional and intuitive reasoning to logical and rational argumentation.

Intuitive defences often highlight personal experiences or strong emotions (e.g. “I just love this brand – it’s never let me down!” or “I’ve had only positive experiences for years – that criticism is totally over the top!”).
In contrast, logical-rational defenders rely more on facts and objective reasoning (e.g. “This kind of fault is statistically very rare.” or “The criticism overlooks important technical details.”).

Interestingly, emotional and intuitive styles clearly dominate—pointing to the importance of personal experiences and emotional bonds in motivating brand defence.

In another study with 570 individuals who had actively defended brands, we identified three core motives driving consumers to speak up for a brand:

• Reciprocal altruism: Consumers defend a brand because they are grateful for positive past experiences and want to give something back.
• Sense of justice: Consumers step in when they perceive the criticism as unfair and wish to correct it.
• Egoism: Consumers defend the brand in order to boost their own standing or gain recognition from others.

Importantly, it's not just emotionally attached customers who defend brands. Our findings show that even highly satisfied consumers with lower emotional attachment can become active brand defenders.

Three Types of Brand Defenders

Based on our results, we identified three distinct types of brand defenders:

• Brand Promoters:
  These individuals feel a strong emotional connection to the brand and are mainly motivated by altruism. They want to share their positive experiences and advocate for the brand in an authentic way.
• Justice Promoters:
  These consumers primarily defend brands when they perceive the criticism as unfair or unjust. They may not feel an emotional connection to the brand, but they are often satisfied customers.
• Self-Promoters:
  This group defends the brand mainly to gain recognition or enhance their own image. They often use confrontational strategies, such as directly challenging critics.

‍

We also examined which contextual factors influence brand defenders, and found some fascinating results:

For example, Brand Promoters are particularly likely to defend the brand when the company itself does not respond to criticism.
Justice Promoters are especially active when the criticism is perceived as unjustified—such as in cases of false accusations.
Self-Promoters, on the other hand, tend to be unimpressed by the severity of the criticism and instead see it as an opportunity to boost their public profile.

Practical Implications

This knowledge offers valuable insights for companies aiming to actively engage with brand defenders:

• Brand Promoters:
  These consumers can be particularly responsive to emotional and authentic communication. Companies might engage them through personal storytelling, influencer collaborations, or community-building activities—strengthening their emotional bond with the brand and supporting their altruistic motives.
• Justice Promoters:
  This group is likely to respond positively to transparent, fair, and dialogue-oriented communication. Companies should address criticism openly and factually, emphasise fairness, and offer opportunities for consumers to contribute to the discussion. Platforms that enable open dialogue are especially effective here.
• Self-Promoters:
  These consumers seek recognition and status. Companies can motivate them by publicly acknowledging their comments or showing appreciation through direct interactions—such as likes or personalised responses. Gamification elements like defence badges or level-ups could also be powerful tools to activate this group.

Conclusion

Consumers who defend brands are valuable ambassadors, perceived as authentic and credible. Companies can actively harness this potential by better understanding the different motives and types of brand defenders—and by tailoring their engagement strategies accordingly.

‍

Reference

Ammann, C., Giuffredi-Kähr, A., Nyffenegger, B., Krohmer, H., & Hoyer, W. D. (2025). EXPRESS: Beyond Strong Bonds: a Typology and Motivational Insights into Online Brand Defenders. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 10949968251320615.