BrandKarma.com puts brand behaviour under the microscope online

BrandKarma.com is a scary place for brand managers. Consumers can now tell the likes of Apple, Coke, Marlboro and Ikea just what they think of them with the launch of the new social media website, which ranks good and bad brands based on categories such as how they treat their customers, the environment and their employees.

The site is the brainchild of Publicis Mojo's Australian chief creative officer Craig Davis. It totals comments on 300 brands, giving each a score, and allows consumers to select companies by sector and see their ranking in terms of their conscionable behaviour (illustrated using a colour-coded flower).

So how has the consumer feedback been so far? In April, the most loved brands included Apple, Google, Coke, Ikea, Nokia, Nike, Sony, Disney, Nintendo and eBay. And the most hated were Marlboro, McDonald's, Pepsi, Microsoft, Coke, American Express, Nestle, Pizza Hut and KFC.

Davis says comments are not moderated unless they are flagged by other users, adding that Brandkarma was designed to help people make better brand choices as well as influence brands' behaviour. "It is a positive and holistic conversation around the merits of a brand. If people [brands] want to get mean with us then we have to deal with it. Hopefully they won't. They'll realise it's important."

The site is the culmination of six months' work by Davis, who has put his own money and time into the venture, with the full knowledge of his employers at Mojo. It is, however, intended as an objective resource, a fact highlighted by the low ranking of Publicis client NestlÇ.

"We've had a couple of conversations with clients, which have been really encouraging. Our hope is it helps people with investing in brands, buying brands and working for brands."

Darren Ryan, general manager marketing at Canon Australia, a brand featured on the website, says he feels it's important to track points of view because it acts as a way to see if the digital/external discussion taking place is consistent with a brand's own tracking and measurement systems.

"I find that these sites act as a good checkpoint to look for improvement areas in your business or to reinforce the job your company is doing," he says. "However, if I have a concern it is that, in this new digital world, it can be difficult for consumers to identify who has a personal axe to grind with a brand and who is taking a total approach to a brand. The editor has a responsibility to ensure that his readers are getting a representative view."

Paul Sands, country manager - Hong Kong, South China, Taiwan and Macau and sustainability advisor - Asia region at Virgin Atlantic Airways, says Virgin has nothing to hide. He is confident in its brand promise, so is not concerned by this kind of forum. "These kinds of discussions take place on the web anyway. We don't get too involved as I think it is good for consumers to be able to carry out these conversations independently, but sites like this can also be quite useful as from time to time they can highlight topics we may not have noticed. For any brand, occasionally there's going to be someone who has an axe to grind, but I think people can see when this is happening."

So will it work? Will brands become better? "For the brand that is featured, be careful about that 'karma' proposition," says Jonathan Sanchez, regional director, Asia-Pacific & Japan at Edelman. "Living with a Buddhist, I'm often reminded that good deeds today don't equal good luck tomorrow - it's not instant coffee."

Davis hopes that the community becomes a fierce and fair democracy where good brand behaviour is recognised and rewarded, and where bad behaviour is called out loud and clear.

Got a view?
Email [email protected]

This article was originally published in the 20 May 2010 issue of Media.