The rise of rage-bait in brand marketing.
Brands today seem less afraid to provoke. It looks like as long as people are talking, they’ve won. This strategy, that we know as “rage-bait”, primes controversy for attention and ultimately, engagement. In fact, recent examples show how polarizing campaigns may drive brand visibility.
First, there was the now famous campaign from American Eagle & Sydney Sweeney. The campaign called “Sydney Sweeney Has Great Jeans” (punning on “genes”), shot their stock up, reportedly by 10–24 % immediately after launch.
Yet critics exploded: some found the tagline uncannily tone-deaf, with echoes of eugenics and white-supremacy messaging.
Then, e.l.f. rolled out a bold ad featuring comedian Matt Rife, that sparked backlash: people flagged Rife’s past sexist jokes and a domestic-violence joke in a 2023 special.
e.l.f. responded swiftly: “We understand we missed the mark,” they said, highlighting how brands can jump into daring campaigns and then pivot when the conversation turns sour.
Lets not forget about the Sabrina Carpenter’s album “Man’s Best Friend”, that sparked intense debate over its cover art: she’s pictured on all fours in a black minidress, while a cropped-out figure grips her hair, a provocative image many found unsettling. Critics called it “degrading,” “regressive,” and said it pandered to the male gaze. But, in the end, the cover ensured widespread coverage, exactly what a rage-bait move aims for.
Why take the risk?
That’s the first question that comes into mind. But we were able to think of a few reasons, starting with the obvious reason: every kind of publicity is still publicity. And in the overcrowded social media scenery, it is harder and harder to get enough attention. So brands might just find that they could resort to the last resort: scandal.
And sometimes, scandal works better than a polished message. Outrage fuels shares, stitches, and duets. People argue, mock, defend. But through all of that, the brand name stays at the center of the feed. Attention is the true currency, and controversy buys it fast.
Another reason is that brands no longer chase universal approval. The idea of being “for everyone” is fading. Instead, they’re leaning into sharper identities, even if that means alienating parts of their audience. Losing a few detractors can be worth it if the core fanbase grows stronger and louder.
There’s also the algorithm factor. Platforms reward engagement, no matter if it’s love or hate. A heated comments section keeps the post alive, pushing it to more people. What feels like backlash is often just free amplification.
Of course, not all rage-bait pays off. If a brand mishandles the follow-up, by denying, hiding, or over-apologizing, they risk turning a spark into a firestorm. The key seems to be confidence. American Eagle didn’t backtrack too much. e.l.f. pivoted quickly but stayed in the conversation. Sabrina Carpenter never explained at all, letting the discourse run its course. Each move shows there’s more strategy behind these controversies than we might think.
Final thoughts.
What we’re watching is a shift. Brands are starting to treat outrage the same way they treat humor or aspiration, as a tool. It’s risky, yes. But when managed carefully, rage-bait can do what every marketer dreams of: make sure nobody stops talking about you.
If you want to stay updated with the latest news in marketing, follow us on Substack and join our weekly #thesubcut. And if you need support with your marketing strategy, send us a message.
