Sterra, a company known for its air and water purifiers, has made headlines for all the wrong reasons in recent months. Over the past two years, the brand’s reputation has come under fire due to its reliance on sourcing products from China and relabelling them as Sterra Products, essentially drop-shipping OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) products, and misleading marketing practices. However, the most recent controversy involving false claims about the safety of Singapore’s tap water could leave a lasting stain on the company’s public perception.
Sterra’s challenges didn’t start with the recent controversy over its misleading tap water claims. From the outset, the brand relied heavily on click-bait ads featuring female influencers, prominently displayed across platforms like TikTok. As an avid TikTok user, I found it evident that Sterra aggressively pushed these ads onto users’ FYPs (For You Pages) in Singapore, similar to the approach taken by Prism. Prism gained popularity during the pandemic by offering more affordable monitors and TVs as a cheaper alternative, but that’s a story for another day—this article is focused on Sterra.
The frustrations of consumers were primarily centred around the belief that Sterra was inflating prices without offering significant added value. This OEM controversy, combined with its questionable pricing tactics—such as false discounts—had steadily eroded public trust. However, the tipping point came when Sterra crossed the line with its false claims about Singapore’s tap water. What was once a quiet conversation about misleading marketing practices exploded into a full-blown controversy, thrusting Sterra’s questionable reputation firmly into the spotlight.
The False Advertising Controversy and Its Immediate Effects
In February 2024, Sterra ran an online advertisement suggesting that Singapore’s tap water contained harmful microorganisms like bacteria and algae, implying that the water was unsafe for consumption without using Sterra’s water purifiers. This claim was quickly debunked by NTU PhD student Clarence Sim, whose viral video demonstrated that the “nasty” microorganisms featured in the advertisement were not found in tap water but likely came from a pond.
View this post on Instagram
The debunking video sparked an immediate backlash, prompting the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCS) and PUB to investigate the misleading claims. In response to the public outcry and official investigations, Sterra issued an apology and removed the advertisement. Despite this, the damage was already done.
Sterra’s Public Perception Plummets as Negative Mentions Surge in 2024
A closer look at the sentiment analysis chart from September 2021 to September 2024 reveals critical insights into Sterra’s shifting public perception. The early part of the timeline (2021-2022) shows relatively low media coverage with mixed sentiments, though largely neutral. However, starting in mid-2023, there was an evident rise in mentions, and by 2024, the volume of negative and neutral mentions skyrocketed. In comparison, positive mentions remain consistently low throughout the timeline.
The sharp growth in negative sentiment, particularly in 2024, can be attributed to the public’s reaction to Sterra’s misleading advertising. February 2024 & July – October 2024 saw the highest spikes in mentions, and a significant portion of these were negative, showing how deeply the brand’s actions affected its public image.
Looking at the word cloud of social media sentiments for Sterra reveals another interesting story. We analysed data from September 2020, tracing Sterra’s entrance into the Singapore market in 2021, where it “achieved sales of millions in its first year, growing to tens of millions the following year.”
Let’s begin by analysing the word clouds for 2021 and 2022, which we will refer to as “WC 21” and “WC 22.” On a sentiment scale from 1 to 10, where 5 represents neutrality, the overall sentiment appears to be approximately a 7, indicating a slight positive tilt. While terms such as “overpriced,” “dirty,” “made in China,” and the often criticised “original equipment manufacturer” lingered on the periphery of both WC 21 and WC 22, they were notably eclipsed by more neutral or positive expressions. Words like “eco-friendly,” “quick,” “convenient,” “tankless,” and the ubiquitous “TikTok” featured more prominently.
However, starting in 2023, a noticeable shift mirrored the growing dissatisfaction with Sterra’s practice of marketing OEM products as homegrown. Terms like “OEM,” “China,” “Taobao,” “Alibaba,” “rebranded,” and “expensive” started appearing much closer to the centre of the word cloud. This also reflected the growing conversation about Sterra’s heavy reliance on influencer marketing, with terms like “influencer marketing” and “influencers” prominently appearing in the word cloud.
In 2024, sentiments became even more damaging, with words such as “misleading,” “false,” “claims,” “OEM,” “apologises,” “probe,” “discounts,” “misled,” “rebranded,” “overpriced,” “scare,” “false discounts,” “misleading claims,” “wrong,” and “POFMA Sterra” taking centre stage in WC 24.
Interestingly, starting in 2023 and continuing into 2024, the word “PRISM” also rose to prominence, likely referencing PRISM+, another company notorious for selling rebranded OEM products. PRISM+ gained popularity during the COVID-19 lockdown years of 2020-2021 in Singapore, much like Sterra.
Sterra’s volume of mentions begins to spike around April 2023, with a sharp rise from January 2024 onwards. The April 2023 spike likely correlates with growing dissatisfaction around Sterra’s pricing and its marketing of OEM products at premium rates. Discussions in online forums began heating up, with users increasingly calling out the brand for its misleading practices. However, the turning point came in February 2024, when an NTU researcher debunked Sterra’s misleading claims about Singapore’s tap water safety. This caused a significant surge in mentions, driving a wave of backlash and leading to widespread media attention.
The most dramatic spike occurred between August 26, 2024, and September 8, 2024, during which Sterra’s media mentions were 1112% higher than usual. This surge was driven mainly by:
- 190 mentions on a Reddit thread
- 138 mentions on another Reddit thread
- 70 mentions on yet another Reddit thread
- 46 mentions on a separate Reddit thread
- 35 mentions from people sharing a link to an article on mothership.sg
- 20 reposts of a particular post that fuelled discussions even further
This sudden rise in volume marks the peak of the crisis for Sterra, as public outrage and discussions hit new highs, driven by social media platforms and online communities. With CASE stepping in and officially labelling Sterra’s actions as deceitful, the brand now faces an uphill battle to regain consumer trust, all while under the glaring spotlight of media scrutiny.
The Long-Term Impact: Can Sterra Recover?
The compounded effects of Sterra’s misleading product origins and the recent false advertising scandal could have a lasting impact on the brand. The rise in negative sentiment is more than just a temporary blip—it reflects more profound issues of trust and credibility that will be difficult to rebuild.
Comparing Sterra’s Crisis to BreadTalk’s Past Misstep
A comparable brand crisis is BreadTalk’s 2015 Soya Bean incident, where the company was exposed for selling repackaged Yeo’s Soya Milk as “freshly prepared,” sparking public outrage over the misleading claim. In response, BreadTalk swiftly distributed 50,000 pork-floss buns to customers over three weekends, donated $50,000 to the Community Chest, and pledged with the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) to avoid unfair practices. Despite these efforts, the incident is still referenced today, showing that the public’s memory can be enduring even in an era of shorter attention spans.
BreadTalk’s decisive actions—public apology, compensation, and corrective measures—helped them rebuild trust. However, nearly a decade later, they still face occasional ridicule over the incident. This serves as a reminder of the importance of addressing brand crises with transparency and urgency, which are lessons Sterra will need to heed in its current situation.
Sterra, facing a crisis of its own, is more precarious. The company made the damaging claim that Singapore’s tap water was unsafe, undermining a critical public service and eroding consumer confidence in a brand that already lacks significant loyalty or equity. Unlike BreadTalk, Sterra cannot rely on a large base of loyal customers to support them through this setback, making their recovery more complex.
Sterra must adopt a comprehensive strategy focused on transparency, ethical business practices, and responsible marketing to overcome this crisis. A short-term fix like influencer campaigns won’t be enough—they will need to invest in long-term brand-building efforts to establish a solid reputation and foster trust. If Sterra fails to act decisively, it risks a long-lasting negative perception similar to BreadTalk’s. However, with the right approach, this crisis could become a turning point for strengthening their brand in the future.
Conclusion
Sterra’s brand reputation has been significantly affected by its actions over the past two years. The reliance on OEM products, misleading advertising, and the tap water scandal have contributed to a surge in negative sentiment and a potential long-term decline in public trust. Like BreadTalk’s soy milk controversy, Sterra’s case underscores the importance of transparency in business practices and the severe consequences of breaching consumer trust. Whether Sterra can recover from this remains to be seen, but one thing is sure: the damage to its reputation will not be easily undone.
