Last week, LeBron James teased “the decision of all decisions” on his social media.
Fans freaked TF out, and so came a wave of online speculation. Was he retiring? Switching teams? The last time Lebron announced something, it was his decision to leave the Cleveland Cavaliers to join the Miami Heat in 2010 during a live ESPN special, literally called “The Decision.” So fans were on high alert, not taking the mention lightly.
And then, surprise, it’s just a cognac ad.
The stunt delivered “all-time high” engagement for Hennessy. The strategy? Harvest emotional attention, then shift it into a product plug. The outcome was a bunch of understandably pissed off fans.
Look, angst, confusion, speculation are all cheap viral fuel.
And folks obviously became upset. One headline: “He weaponized his looming retirement … as a tool of late-stage capitalism.” Yikes.
I feel like I’ve starting to notice this kind of negative attention farming become a common strategy among brands as of late. And it's painfully obvious they’re all trying to do one thing: rage bait us into engagement.
Another example of this is American Eagle’s recent campaign with Sydney Sweeney (yes, that one).
It was tagged “Sydney Sweeney Has Great Jeans” (yes, gross pun on “genes”). The ads triggered critique for alleged dog-whistle references to eugenics: blue eyes, blonde hair, talk about “traits”… critics flagged this as tone-deaf or worse. Meanwhile AE got piles of coverage, including from major political figures. The uproar amplified awareness.
This is what I mean when I say the backlash can’t be accidental. To me, it seems calibrated. Because when there’s already public speculation surrounding your (Republican) political views, why would you do a campaign that reads like a thinly veiled support for white supremacy and eugenics?
And finally, Coca-Cola.
The brand’s holiday ad campaign leaned on generative AI landed with plenty of “soulless,” “creepy” reaction from consumers. Yet the brand says it was one of their top-tested ads in history and they’re doubling down on pushing the envelope.
It’s another example of stirring discomfort, stirring commentary, inducing shares, then trading that engagement for brand relevance. At heart, controversy = attention = (hopefully) conversion.
So yes, I’m convinced that brands are intentionally courting polarisation and controversy as a growth hack. Let’s break it down.
Why ragebaiting works:
In a saturated media environment, simply being “nice” and “safe” doesn’t spark conversation. If no one says “Wait… what did they just do?” then the campaign disappears into feed-noise.
Controversy triggers earned media. Consumers ranting, news outlets covering “brand under fire”, political figures weigh in. Hello, free amplification.
Engagement metrics reward strong emotions (positive or negative). If people are riled up, they comment/share. The Hennessy campaign saw >12% engagement rates, well above benchmarks.
And finally, vulnerability. When you inflict “Should we talk about this?” in an ad, you force a second wave of mentions, which many brands appear willing to accept as part of the plan.
But here’s the rub:
There’s a thin line between purposeful provocation and tone-deafness. With American Eagle, when the pun “genes/jeans” triggered memories of eugenics, the brand stumbled (or ran headfirst) into a cultural minefield.
There’s also brand risk. Goodwill burns faster than cheap hype. LeBron’s ad got accused of “burning through some of the goodwill he had worked so carefully to cultivate.” That’s hard to come back from.
It shifts brand identity into reaction mode. Rather than shaping a narrative, you become synonymous with “Did they just do that?”
Long-term impact. Short viral bursts feel good, but does that turn into sustained loyalty? Diminishing returns loom when the audience catches on.
So what should marketers do instead?
Ask: “Are we pissing people off for the sake of being seen? Or are we genuinely sparking a meaningful conversation that aligns with our brand purpose?”
Make sure the controversy ties back to something meaningful, not just a stunt. Hennessy tied it to cultural relevance and LeBron’s status; AE probably missed the meaningful tie and got headline noise instead.
Pre-test the “upside risk” of the blow-up. If your campaign invites backlash, are you ready for that spin cycle?
Focus on what happens after the spike. Engagement is lovely. But what does it convert into? Brand affinity, purchase, advocacy? Make sure you’ve got the bridge.
The bottom line is, yeah, I believe they're doing it on purpose.
These campaigns look like they’ve been through five rounds of safe review, yet they drop something borderline and edgy anyway.
That’s too coordinated to be an accident. For marketers, the lesson isn’t “avoid all controversy.” It’s “own the narrative, align the risk with your brand, and make sure the engagement earns something.”
Letting chaos just happen? Probably not the smartest path. Take it from someone who did that in her personal life all of her 20s.
-Sophie Randell, Writer
Not going viral yet?
We get it. Creating content that does numbers is harder than it looks. But doing those big numbers is the fastest way to grow your brand. So if you’re tired of throwing sh*t at the wall and seeing what sticks, you’re in luck. Because making our clients go viral is kinda what we do every single day.