Was the Gasp fiasco a win or a loss for the retailer?

I am a bit late to the Gasp party, but the hysteria surrounding a bit of rude customer service could use some distance.

For those living under a rock, articles last week about one customers experience in a Gasp store and then her subsequent treatment by their customer service department, set off a social media storm of recrimination and outrage against the company. In response the company at first deleted comments and then pulled down their facebook page, triggering a further round of twitter rage and several imposter pages being set up where people could vent their spleen unedited.

I’ll admit to jumping on the bandwagon with a tweet saying “If your brand promise is to be rude and arrogant then mission accomplished.” Smart Company also weighed in with an article about the lessons from the situation for other businesses.

Gasp remains unrepentant about their actions, going so far as banning the girl who made the original customer service complaint until she apologises – which is nothing more than a bit of shameless manipulation designed to stoke the fires of outrage.

So among all this I started to get curious about what Gasp promises. Their media spin leads us to believe they are an “exclusive” fashion retailer whose clothes are worn by “A-List” celebrities.

A quick look at their web site (gaspjeans.com.au) tells us that their “brand” is sexy and assertive and that they seek to “attract customers who are fascinated by the playfully, sensual and evocative Gasp lifestyle.”

As a side note, if you want to be known for “high-fashion, exclusive” frocks, then perhaps consider that a URL that says Gaspjeans sends a bit or a mixed message.

A hint of the “assertive” attitude encountered by the wayward customer (clearly her definition of a playful lifestyle differed from Gasp’s) can be found in their online store policies which state “When you buy, you should choose carefully. You don’t automatically get a refund or exchange for simply changing your mind…”.

If Gasp spin and the big bold red notice on their web home page are to be believed the attention has led to unprecedented demand for their clothes (personally I’d like to see the figures before I buy that).

Which only makes their “banning” of the customer who kicked the whole thing off all the more perplexing – a gift of any dress in the store perhaps being a better option.

Companies are more than entitled behave in whatever manner they like, and the result of those actions and decisions is the brand, irrespective of what media and marketing might try and assert.

Personally, I don’t think a company ever wins in the long-term by going out of their way to be rude to a customer. And while being exclusive is often equated with a snooty attitude designed to intimidate the masses, as Julia Roberts’ character demonstrated in Pretty Woman, circumstances change and can turn the mistreatment of any customer into a “big mistake”.

My advice to Gasp would be to embrace the sexy, playful part of their brand and leave the “assertive” bit on the cutting room floor. As my nana often said – you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

See you next week.

Michel is an independent Brand adviser and advocate. Through her work with Brandology here in Australia and in the United States she helps organisations make promises they can keep and keep the promises they make, with a strong sustainable brand as the result. She also publishes the Brand thought leadership blog – Brand Alignment. You can follow Michel on Twitter @michelhogan.