A distinctive category of content has lately been gaining popularity on the Indian social media landscape, content that strangely binds opposites. It is called ‘cringe’ or ‘cringeworthy’. We detest it, but we also want to see it again. We might recoil at its absurdity, but we also share it further, and as such content gains virality 1,2, we wonder about its strange creativity. Practices like Mukbang livestreams, and social media sensations like Dolly Chaiwala, Puneet Superstar, Vadapav Girl or Dhinchak Pooja have been considered cringeworthy, but have been recruited to promote brands as well 3. Cringe has been lately considered as an effective way to gain attention in the hyper cluttered social media space, for its raw, unfiltered, or flawed-yet-exaggerated representation of various content 4. Brands, expectedly, are jumping on this bandwagon and utilizing such influencers to gain attention and generate preference 4. Moreover, brands themselves end up creating content that is perceived as cringe, often making the brand the butt of a joke, or leading to hasty campaign withdrawals 5. All these patterns reveal that cringe is an important but complex, potent, and risky phenomenon to engage with.
In this commentary, we unpack the cultural phenomenon of ‘cringe’ through an academic lens, and propose some implications for marketing practitioners.
So, what does academia have to say about cringe? While an exhaustive review of the concept is not possible in this commentary, we attempt to provide a succinct synthesis. Cringe, as an emotion, has generally been considered a vicarious form of shame and embarrassment, experienced when witnessing an act that violates usually expected social norms 1,6,7. Talking loudly, styling oneself egregiously, or acting weirdly in certain social contexts becomes a violation of social expectation, accompanied by vicarious shame/embarrassment, because the observer engaging in anything similar would naturally feel the same 1. Such shame and embarrassment are often accompanied by buildup of bodily tension, such as recoiling, wincing or flinching, averting the gaze, or jerking one’s head. Some forms of cringe (especially those found on social media) are also funny, which is accompanied by laughter, and such laughter allows for the release of the built-up bodily tension. In that aspect, cringe comes close to a masochistic experience that simultaneously combines the feelings of discomfort and pleasure 2,6.
In a more recent study, Thomas Spiegel makes an interesting argument that cringe is closer to disgust and horror than to shame and embarrassment 6. This is because the physiological markers of cringe (recoiling, flinching, averting the gaze) are similar to markers when one is disgusted/horrified by an unsightly or distasteful object. The notion of taste (in a broader sense of liking, preferences, and habits) becomes crucial here, such that cringe is induced by an intolerable violation of the socio-cultural taste of the observer 8,9,10. Since taste is central to the experience of social distinction and superiority, Spiegel argues that cringe is appealing because it allows the observer to feel a superior distinction over the ignorance, awkwardness, or poor-taste of the cringe-inducing object. The laughter is akin to ‘laughing-at-someone’ and it reinforces the sense of superiority. Relatedly, poking fun at the cringe-object becomes a means to express benign hostility toward someone who is different (and inferior) from the taste-world of the observer. Spiegel further argues that with increasing fragmentation of taste structures in our society—which demands distinction and superiority (being better than others) yet expects tolerance and acceptance—cringe serves an important social function by allowing a benign means to address this tension, that is, by feeling superior and intolerant toward the cringe-inducing object while being mostly harmless.
The above synthesis suggests that cringe is a complex and a socio-culturally grounded concept that requires delicate handling. We frame practitioner implications in the form of the following questions, which offer actionable directions for using cringe effectively:
- What is your purpose (in using cringe)?
Brands can utilize cringe to gain attention, induce humor, express relatability, or signal superiority. These different objectives require delicate handling of signs and symbols utilized to engage with cringe. The choice of influencer, the nature of the cringe-inducing act, the object and subject of cringe, etc., would be determined significantly by what is to be achieved by the brand. Thus, clarity regarding the purpose of using cringe remains paramount.
- Who is (and who is not) your audience?
Cringe, while being a private emotion, is inherently a socio-culturally embedded experience. What is cringe for me may not be cringe for you. Thus, precise clarity regarding which audience is being targeted by cringe-oriented promotion is essential. Given that cringe involves shame, embarrassment, superiority, and hostility, it is also extremely important to be clear about who is portrayed as cringeworthy, so that the brand is not perceived as insensitive or drawn into an undesirable controversy.
- Who are you?
Cringe is not for every brand, just because it is topical and (sometimes) cool. The personality of a brand—its associations and imagery, and its past—becomes significantly influential in determining whether cringe would benefit the brand. If it is not fitting with the overall brand’s image, there can be other ways to achieve brand objectives than to engage with cringe. Finally, brands also need a degree of courage to effectively engage with cringe, because of the risk inherent in it.
- What is your context?
A sensitive and detailed grasp of the broader context is essential to ensure that the brand (utilizing cringe) does not end up becoming controversial, alienating, or offensive. Given that promotions intended for the target audience rarely remain targeted and can circulate widely, preparation and sensitivity to the broader context help prevent blind spots or at least, be prepared for some expected reactions.
So, cringe is there around us, and it is complex and risky, but can be effective when used with proper understanding, care, and finesse.
We hope you enjoyed this commentary. Do share your feedback at cclab@iimu.ac.in, and stay tuned for the next edition! To know more about the Consumer Culture Lab, visit: https://cclab.iimu.ac.in/
by Webmaster IIMU
Share
Connecting Culture, Academia, and Practice
(in under 1000 words)
A distinctive category of content has lately been gaining popularity on the Indian social media landscape, content that strangely binds opposites. It is called ‘cringe’ or ‘cringeworthy’. We detest it, but we also want to see it again. We might recoil at its absurdity, but we also share it further, and as such content gains virality 1,2, we wonder about its strange creativity. Practices like Mukbang livestreams, and social media sensations like Dolly Chaiwala, Puneet Superstar, Vadapav Girl or Dhinchak Pooja have been considered cringeworthy, but have been recruited to promote brands as well 3. Cringe has been lately considered as an effective way to gain attention in the hyper cluttered social media space, for its raw, unfiltered, or flawed-yet-exaggerated representation of various content 4. Brands, expectedly, are jumping on this bandwagon and utilizing such influencers to gain attention and generate preference 4. Moreover, brands themselves end up creating content that is perceived as cringe, often making the brand the butt of a joke, or leading to hasty campaign withdrawals 5. All these patterns reveal that cringe is an important but complex, potent, and risky phenomenon to engage with.
In this commentary, we unpack the cultural phenomenon of ‘cringe’ through an academic lens, and propose some implications for marketing practitioners.
So, what does academia have to say about cringe? While an exhaustive review of the concept is not possible in this commentary, we attempt to provide a succinct synthesis. Cringe, as an emotion, has generally been considered a vicarious form of shame and embarrassment, experienced when witnessing an act that violates usually expected social norms 1,6,7. Talking loudly, styling oneself egregiously, or acting weirdly in certain social contexts becomes a violation of social expectation, accompanied by vicarious shame/embarrassment, because the observer engaging in anything similar would naturally feel the same 1. Such shame and embarrassment are often accompanied by buildup of bodily tension, such as recoiling, wincing or flinching, averting the gaze, or jerking one’s head. Some forms of cringe (especially those found on social media) are also funny, which is accompanied by laughter, and such laughter allows for the release of the built-up bodily tension. In that aspect, cringe comes close to a masochistic experience that simultaneously combines the feelings of discomfort and pleasure 2,6.
In a more recent study, Thomas Spiegel makes an interesting argument that cringe is closer to disgust and horror than to shame and embarrassment 6. This is because the physiological markers of cringe (recoiling, flinching, averting the gaze) are similar to markers when one is disgusted/horrified by an unsightly or distasteful object. The notion of taste (in a broader sense of liking, preferences, and habits) becomes crucial here, such that cringe is induced by an intolerable violation of the socio-cultural taste of the observer 8,9,10. Since taste is central to the experience of social distinction and superiority, Spiegel argues that cringe is appealing because it allows the observer to feel a superior distinction over the ignorance, awkwardness, or poor-taste of the cringe-inducing object. The laughter is akin to ‘laughing-at-someone’ and it reinforces the sense of superiority. Relatedly, poking fun at the cringe-object becomes a means to express benign hostility toward someone who is different (and inferior) from the taste-world of the observer. Spiegel further argues that with increasing fragmentation of taste structures in our society—which demands distinction and superiority (being better than others) yet expects tolerance and acceptance—cringe serves an important social function by allowing a benign means to address this tension, that is, by feeling superior and intolerant toward the cringe-inducing object while being mostly harmless.
The above synthesis suggests that cringe is a complex and a socio-culturally grounded concept that requires delicate handling. We frame practitioner implications in the form of the following questions, which offer actionable directions for using cringe effectively:
Brands can utilize cringe to gain attention, induce humor, express relatability, or signal superiority. These different objectives require delicate handling of signs and symbols utilized to engage with cringe. The choice of influencer, the nature of the cringe-inducing act, the object and subject of cringe, etc., would be determined significantly by what is to be achieved by the brand. Thus, clarity regarding the purpose of using cringe remains paramount.
Cringe, while being a private emotion, is inherently a socio-culturally embedded experience. What is cringe for me may not be cringe for you. Thus, precise clarity regarding which audience is being targeted by cringe-oriented promotion is essential. Given that cringe involves shame, embarrassment, superiority, and hostility, it is also extremely important to be clear about who is portrayed as cringeworthy, so that the brand is not perceived as insensitive or drawn into an undesirable controversy.
Cringe is not for every brand, just because it is topical and (sometimes) cool. The personality of a brand—its associations and imagery, and its past—becomes significantly influential in determining whether cringe would benefit the brand. If it is not fitting with the overall brand’s image, there can be other ways to achieve brand objectives than to engage with cringe. Finally, brands also need a degree of courage to effectively engage with cringe, because of the risk inherent in it.
A sensitive and detailed grasp of the broader context is essential to ensure that the brand (utilizing cringe) does not end up becoming controversial, alienating, or offensive. Given that promotions intended for the target audience rarely remain targeted and can circulate widely, preparation and sensitivity to the broader context help prevent blind spots or at least, be prepared for some expected reactions.
So, cringe is there around us, and it is complex and risky, but can be effective when used with proper understanding, care, and finesse.
We hope you enjoyed this commentary. Do share your feedback at cclab@iimu.ac.in, and stay tuned for the next edition! To know more about the Consumer Culture Lab, visit: https://cclab.iimu.ac.in/
References:
https://doi.org/10.1177/00222437241305104
https://doi.org/10.1177/15274764221095792
https://doi.org/10.1177/14705931231154944
https://thewire.in/culture/the-myth-of-superior-taste-and-the-politics-of-cringe
About the authors:
Ankur Kapoor is a faculty member in marketing, and the co-chair of the Consumer Culture Lab at IIM Udaipur. Arvind K. Lohan is a Research Associate at IIM Udaipur.
STAY IN THE LOOP
Subscribe to our free newsletter.
Leave A Comment
Related Posts