As if anyone needs any more proof Korean Corporate Reputation Research Institute Brand Rep rankings is a giant pile of dung, but here we are...

Quote from David33

I didn't want to talk about this shit-list again, but I need to say something.

I get your point, BUT what happened with LSF is not even close to what's happening with NJ. I mean, this is an ongoing shit for MONTHS, but LSF only got those hate posts for how long, 1 or 2 months? And everyone moved on.

I never understood how people can take this list seriously. Even if it's 100% perfect and not biased or anything like that, it's still just a freakin' SOCIAL MEDIA Trend list, nothing more, nothing less. It's not about REAL BRAND REP, never was and never will be!

People are way too obsessed with numbers and charts, and forget what's important, MUSIC!

Display More

The only thing people in Korea have moved on from is listening to LSF's music like they did pre-controversy

I do not enjoy typing that, as they are my second favorite current gen girl group, but Crazy is their worst performing title track in Korea easily, and it's obvious why.

Anyways, I'm going to leave this twitter thread here so people can learn about the absolute humanitarian responsible for this index

Quote from Varenka

I've responded to people that disagreed with me on that point. I haven't spammed every unrelated post with that message, and I haven't kept repeating myself for no reason. I'm not gaslighting you: most normal people would consider it unhinged, especially in the context of a K-pop fandoms having a minority with a propensity to act out of line.

The rest of your post doesn't have to do with anything that I said. No one called this a giant company. No one is defending his methodology. No one has defended this random guy's behavior. Or at least I haven't.

If you want to discuss other points, then I'm happy to do so. To summarize:

1) we disagree on the caller asking for the employee's name

2) we agree that the methodology of this index from what we know seems to match other metrics including brand deals that have been signed

What else would you like to go over?

Display More

South Korea is a one party consent state, so this type of interaction is quite common.

Putting a name to a statement given out is standard whether it is done by an employee or not. The employee represents and speaks for the institute.

In customer service, this is why representatives start by giving out their name. 'X said this. Can you confirm this?'

Whether it is a public company or a government institution, you ask for the name of the employee if you want to move up the chain of command.

Quote from Varenka

It could be a translation quirk because it sounds to me like the threat is based on the association of that person's name with the information being put out. It's not like rep could prevent that information from going out once they said it.

I'm not sure about the defending of the list. Last time we discussed this, I think it said that the exact methodology wasn't released to the public, so it's hard to judge what they're actually ranking beyond the name since it doesn't seem to match what's actually going on. What I would've found illuminating is getting the answer to this question in bold:

Since it would give us more insight into how this thing is made up.

A customer representative will often time not give out their actual name when asked; they often make up names for a variety of reasons, including privacy. Asking for an employee name on a call, if they choose to give out a fake one, will confirm nothing in that case even on a recorded line. Voiced logs with call records, which can more easily be confirmed before the era of AI (the voice, I mean), or written logs are always superior in cases where you actually want to show that X said Y.

Display More

Different company have different policies, but I'm saying that it isn't an unreasonable request. People routinely do so.

Also, you are taking the example too literally. The employee in question didn't mention that the call is being recorded, so I doubt voice logs are being kept. The solution you give doesn't match this situation.

This seems to be a data/brand consulting firm. It is their job to explain and defend their methodology, not threaten to sue anyone that asks about a certain result.

I knew it, it all a conspiracy to keep Tri.Be from blowing up.

Quote from YamaChwan

The only thing people in Korea have moved on from is listening to LSF's music like they did pre-controversy

And probably this is the reason you can't see much negativity about them online. It's basically their fans posting positive comments, that's why they're high on the list.

I mean, that's the whole reason Mamamoo and SNSD (even as a 17 year old group) are on this list as well.

People only write hate comments when the topic is mainstream, and LSF is anything but mainstream nowadays. The whole Kpop is about this stupid HYBE drama.

Asia Brand Research Institute unveils for the first time ‘Brand Index for Girlgroup Members’ following suspicions surrounding Korea Corporate Reputation Institute ‘Brand Reputation’:

I’ve thought BR was bogus for like a year now lol. The ranking is nonsensical half the time. aespa for example will randomly launch up and down while on hiatus (even taking into account random viral moments). It’s just like one guy and his opinion.