In an era where attention is such a valuable currency, controversy has become a common communications strategy - what is known as "rage-baiting". From provocative campaigns to shock-value stunts, some brands are embracing outrage to earn "cheap" visibility in a crowded media landscape. But as algorithms reward emotional reactions and attention spans continue to shrink, the ethical and reputational risks of such tactics are growing.
To find out more, Telum Media spoke with Joanne Painter, Managing Director of Icon Agency, about why brands are leaning into controversy despite risks of backlash, what happens when outrage becomes a marketing tool, and how communicators can navigate the fine line between being bold and risking their company's reputation.
Why are brands courting controversy, even when backlash is predictable? Is it oversight, creative risk-taking, or something else?
Rage-baiting has moved from internet subculture to the mainstream playbook because it delivers cheap reach. Outrage supercharges sharing, news pickup and search interest, functionally replacing paid media with earned attention.
In commoditised categories, provocation also signals identity ("we’re the mavericks"). It rallies a core base and forces a place in culture. While some misfires are accidental, many marketing teams now plan for heat - hook with shock, pivot to a message, ride the coverage, then apologise if needed.
However, rage-baiting remains a fraught and highly risky tactic. Consider Burger King UK's International Women's Day stunt. The first tweet read "Women belong in the kitchen", followed by context about scholarships for female chefs. The hook went viral; the explanation didn't. Backlash swamped the message, the tweet was deleted, and BK apologised. Evidence perhaps that engineered provocation can eclipse intent and damage sentiment even as it drives massive impressions.
In Australia, Wicked Campers built notoriety on deliberately offensive van slogans. The attention model worked - until regulators responded. Multiple jurisdictions empowered authorities to cancel registrations if slogans breached ad standards, demonstrating how a strategy of perpetual offence can trigger legal constraints and shrink distribution.
The calculus, then: controversy is a shortcut to salience and "free" media. It differentiates and signals edge, but it also concentrates risk where reputation is built: values, stakeholder trust, and social licence to operate. Rather than asking "will this trend?", smart marketers are asking "will this travel across audiences, headlines and time?"
With shrinking attention spans and rage-farming algorithms, how are comms teams responding to increasing pressure to drive engagement and brand visibility? How are leaders making the call between a bold, conversation-starting campaign and one that’s simply reckless and tone-deaf?
Shrinking attention spans and rage-farming algorithms have upped the pressure on communications teams to deliver engagement - sometimes at any cost.
With social platforms often amplifying emotionally charged content - leaked data suggests "angry" reactions can be weighted five times more than "likes" - outrage is being supercharged in newsfeeds. Controversy has become one of the quickest ways to boost awareness - at least in the short term.
Some comms teams have responded with edgier campaigns designed to get people talking (or arguing) online. The logic is that a polarising ad will spark conversation, giving the brand outsized visibility. Every response roasting the campaign is essentially free PR.
For PR and comms teams, recognising the difference between a conversation-starting campaign and a reckless, tone-deaf misfire hinges on intent and preparation. Was the campaign crafted to spark meaningful debate aligned with brand values, or merely to provoke anger and engagement? Savvy leaders pressure-test provocative ideas through diverse perspectives and social listening before launch, and war-game worst-case reactions.
Something that cosmetics brand, e.l.f., overlooked when it released a new ad in August featuring comedian, Matt Rife, was that his track record included jokes about domestic violence. The company quickly apologised and pulled the ad which was offensive to its values, signalling it hadn't fully gauged the risks.
Communications teams should balance the demand for engagement with thoughtful risk management. As one strategist notes, algorithms reward outrage, but they also amplify joy, empathy, and creativity. The leadership challenge is knowing when a bold idea is on-brand and constructive, and when it’s simply a stunt that could backfire.
From a PR ethics and brand reputation perspective, how sustainable is this rage-baiting approach? And what does 'all press is good press' really mean for the reputation of the PR and comms industry itself?
The old brand reputation rule book is being rewritten in real time. Take American Eagle's Sydney Sweeney Has Great Jeans campaign. Ethically, the campaign's sly allusion to eugenics via the genetically blessed Sydney Sweeney is deeply troubling.
That a major apparel brand chose to lean into rage-baiting using racist inferences signals a deeply troubling shift in marketing ethics. Amid global controversy and outrage, the company's shares jumped 33 per cent and sales rocketed. What remains to be seen is how many consumers have lost trust, respect and admiration for the brand - arguably the more valuable currency when it comes to the world of fashion and retail.
For smaller brands the old adage of 'any publicity is good publicity' now equates to 'anger fuels engagement and engagement fuels visibility and profits'. In this case, ethics and brand reputation take a back seat, as the predictable backlash to rage-bait advertising translates into free advertising.
This is the tactic that UK fitness brand, Protein World, used when it ran its controversial Beach Body Ready ad that many condemned as body-shaming. The ensuing public outcry (defaced billboards, 50,000 petition signatures) gave the brand publicity - and the company claimed it reaped £1 million in extra sales within days. In such cases, "no publicity is bad publicity" is the operating belief.
The common thread is a media environment that rewards extremes - making outrage, for better or worse, a tempting currency for attention. For PR agencies trying to navigate this ambiguous ethical line, my advice is to focus on helping clients take purposeful risks aligned with their values. Creative risk taking to spark constructive conversation and engagement should be the goal.
In today's landscape of attention and algorithm battlegrounds, what does long-term, reputation-building PR look like? What guiding principles should communicators apply before adopting shock-value approaches?
The real power move for brands is balancing creative risk with long-term reputation-building. Here are five key principles to consider before adopting shock-value tactics:
- Align bold ideas with core values - Being provocative only works when it rings true to your brand's purpose and values. Think Nike's values-driven Kaepernick ad, it became legendary because it recognised that consistency of purpose breeds trust; constant controversy does not.
- Consider the long game - Consumers have long memories. Is a spike in attention now worth potential brand damage later? History shows sustained brand equity comes from trust and relevance, not from every short-lived viral moment. If your campaign offers "borrowed attention" but no lasting goodwill, think twice.
- Stress-test your ideas - Before green-lighting an edgy idea, stress-test it across cultures and demographics. Ensure your team includes diverse perspectives or conducts thorough research so you're not operating in an echo chamber.
- Plan for backlash - If controversy is part of the strategy, have a rationale ready and crisis plan in your back pocket. Set clear red lines and agree which lines not to cross. Be ready to respond swiftly and sincerely with corrections or apologies if your message offends beyond intent.
- Prioritise authentic engagement - Remember that building reputation is about earning trust, not tricking the algorithm. Consider investing in content that inspires positive emotion, dialogue, and community. The best use of rage-baiting moments is often to participate in culture in your own tone and ethos. In other words, you don't need to manufacture anger to be relevant. Be the brand that sparks discussions and connections rather than the one that routinely chases outrage for clicks.
By following these guiding principles, communicators can navigate the algorithmic battleground without losing their ethical compass. The ultimate takeaway: controversy should be a byproduct of standing for something real, not a goal in itself.
In a trust-deficient landscape, PR professionals win in the long run by crafting campaigns that earn attention and respect, proving that you don't have to bait rage to build a brand that truly resonates.
.jpg)
