"A renowned restaurant, 'Sultan's Dine,' usually serves mutton biryani.

However, there was a

sudden negative viral marketing spreading false information that the restaurant served dog
meat instead of mutton. As a result, there was chaos on social media. Surprisingly, the
following day after the rumor, the restaurant was full, which backfired the viral marketing.
Explain why consumers did not boycott the restaurant using consumer behavior theory."

Solution 1
The phenomenon you are describing is an example of a type of rumor or urban legend known as a "food
scare." Such rumors spread quickly and can have significant impacts on consumer behavior. In this case,
the rumor that the restaurant serves dog meat instead of mutton has led to negative publicity on social
media, and many consumers may have initially decided to boycott the restaurant.

However, it appears that the boycott did not happen and the restaurant was even more popular the
following day. This can be explained by several factors in consumer behavior theory:

Cognitive dissonance: When people are faced with conflicting information, they experience a state of
mental discomfort known as cognitive dissonance. In this case, consumers who had previously enjoyed
the restaurant's mutton biryani were faced with the possibility that they had unknowingly eaten dog
meat. This could have led them to feel uncomfortable and to seek out information that would alleviate
their discomfort. If they found evidence that the restaurant did not actually serve dog meat, they may
have been more likely to return to the restaurant.

Social proof: People often look to others for guidance on how to behave, particularly in ambiguous or
uncertain situations. When the negative rumor about the restaurant spread on social media, it may have
led some people to initially decide to boycott the restaurant. However, when they saw that others were
still patronizing the restaurant, they may have concluded that the rumor was false or that the risk of
eating dog meat was low. This could have led them to return to the restaurant.

Confirmation bias: People tend to seek out information that confirms their existing beliefs and opinions.
If someone had previously enjoyed the restaurant's mutton biryani, they may have been more likely to
seek out information that confirmed that the restaurant did not serve dog meat, and less likely to pay
attention to information that contradicted their beliefs.

Overall, these factors could help to explain why consumers did not boycott the restaurant in large
numbers, despite the negative viral marketing. However, it's worth noting that the restaurant may have
still suffered some reputational damage, and that some consumers may have been deterred from
visiting the restaurant in the future.
"A renowned restaurant, 'Sultan's Dine,' usually serves mutton biryani. However, there was a
sudden negative viral marketing spreading false information that the restaurant served dog
meat instead of mutton. As a result, there was chaos on social media. Surprisingly, the
following day after the rumor, the restaurant was full, which backfired the viral marketing.
Explain why consumers did not boycott the restaurant using consumer behavior theory."

Solution 2

This phenomenon is an example of the "boomerang effect" in consumer behavior theory. The
boomerang effect occurs when negative publicity has the opposite effect on consumers, leading to
increased demand or support for the product or brand in question.

In this case, the negative viral marketing that spread about the restaurant initially had the potential to
damage the restaurant's reputation and decrease consumer demand. However, the effect was reversed,
and the restaurant became houseful the following day.

There are several reasons why the boomerang effect may occur. One reason is that consumers may feel
a sense of loyalty to the restaurant and may defend it against the negative rumors. Another reason may
be that the controversy generated curiosity and interest in trying the food at the restaurant. Finally,
consumers may be skeptical about the truthfulness of the negative rumors and may not believe them.

It is also possible that the boomerang effect was the result of the controversy generating more
widespread awareness of the restaurant and its menu, leading to increased demand. In any case, the
boomerang effect is an interesting phenomenon in consumer behavior theory that highlights the
complexity of consumer decision-making processes.
"A renowned restaurant, 'Sultan's Dine,' usually serves mutton biryani. However, there was a
sudden negative viral marketing spreading false information that the restaurant served dog
meat instead of mutton. As a result, there was chaos on social media. Surprisingly, the
following day after the rumor, the restaurant was full, which backfired the viral marketing.
Explain why consumers did not boycott the restaurant using consumer behavior theory."

Solution 3
This phenomenon can be explained by a well-known theory in consumer behavior called "reactance
theory". According to this theory, when individuals feel that their freedom or choices are being
threatened or restricted, they are likely to react by asserting their freedom and making choices that
prove their independence.

In the case of the restaurant "X", the negative viral marketing about serving dog meat could have been
perceived by some customers as an attempt to limit their choice of food and dictate their behavior. As a
result, some customers may have felt the need to assert their independence by continuing to visit the
restaurant despite the rumors, thereby increasing the demand for the restaurant's services.

Moreover, the restaurant's sudden popularity after the rumors can also be attributed to another
consumer behavior phenomenon called the "bandwagon effect". According to this theory, people are
more likely to adopt behaviors or opinions when they see others doing the same, especially when there
is uncertainty or ambiguity about the situation. In this case, the sudden increase in customers at the
restaurant could have created a perception that the restaurant is popular and desirable, leading more
people to want to visit and experience it for themselves.

In summary, the reactance theory and the bandwagon effect can explain why consumers did not boycott
the restaurant "X" despite the negative rumors. Some customers may have felt the need to assert their
independence by continuing to visit the restaurant, while others may have been influenced by the
sudden popularity of the restaurant.
"A renowned restaurant, 'Sultan's Dine,' usually serves mutton biryani. However, there was a
sudden negative viral marketing spreading false information that the restaurant served dog
meat instead of mutton. As a result, there was chaos on social media. Surprisingly, the
following day after the rumor, the restaurant was full, which backfired the viral marketing.
Explain why consumers did not boycott the restaurant using consumer behavior theory."

Solution 4

According to the theory of cognitive dissonance, consumers tend to justify their actions and beliefs to
reduce any discomfort or inconsistency between their beliefs and actions. In this case, consumers who
have been regular customers of the restaurant "X" might have developed a liking for the taste of mutton
biryani, and the negative viral marketing about the restaurant serving dog meat may create a cognitive
dissonance between their liking for the food and the information about the meat being served.

However, the consumers may try to justify their liking for the restaurant and its food by rationalizing
that the viral marketing could be false or that the restaurant might have taken corrective measures to
address the issue. Additionally, some consumers may feel that the negative publicity has made the
restaurant more popular and may want to experience it themselves.

Furthermore, social influence theory suggests that consumers are influenced by their social circle and
peer pressure. In this case, some consumers may feel that if they boycott the restaurant, they might go
against their social circle, who might continue to visit the restaurant. This can lead to a fear of missing
out and social isolation, which may encourage consumers to continue visiting the restaurant despite the
negative rumors.

Lastly, it is important to note that not all consumers may have the same level of awareness about the
negative viral marketing, and some may not have access to social media or might not be active on it.
Therefore, they may not have heard about the rumor and continue to visit the restaurant as usual.