PurposeThis study aims to investigate the antecedents, consequences and severity of brand hate towards Starbucks, which was boycotted on social media due to its post-earthquake behaviour, including its "perceived silence", in other words, playing dead, by delaying the publication of a condolence message and making an allegedly insufficient donation following the Kahramanmaras earthquakes in T & uuml;rkiye.Design/methodology/approachBased on K & uuml;& ccedil;& uuml;k's (2019) hierarchical model for brand hate, the severity of the brand hate attracted by Starbucks is differentiated. The antecedents and the consequences of brand hate in the aforementioned boycott period are investigated by conducting a thematic analysis of tweets collected from Twitter.FindingsHot hate was found to be the most frequently observed severity of hate towards Starbucks during the boycott period. Besides, brand betrayal (56.83%, n = 262 of 456 tweets) and insincerity (34.49%, n = 159 of 456 tweets) were prominent antecedents of brand hate and were found to be specific triggers of hot hate and cold hate, respectively. This study determined that negative word of mouth (20.54%, n = 205 of 510 tweets) and brand avoidance (11.92%, n = 119 of 510 tweets) were remarkable consequences of brand hate towards Starbucks and were also found to be extensions of hot brand hate.Originality/valueThis study makes a theoretical contribution to the literature by demonstrating how severity of hate functions as both a consequence and a trigger of brand hate. In addition, it expands the brand hate theory by showing that brand questioning can be a consequence of attitudinal brand hate, ethnocentric tendencies can trigger brand switching behaviour and symbolic incongruity can be associated with both cold hate and cool hate. In addition, by analysing real-time Twitter data, the study reveals how brand hate intensifies in crisis contexts and showcases social media as a powerful tool for understanding consumer backlash.