When outrage drives earned coverage - at what cost?

By Fabiana Ferrero, Account Director

There’s no denying that outrage sells. It spikes click rates and gets brands into the cultural conversation. We saw it this summer with American Eagle’s Sydney Sweeney campaign, where a seemingly harmless pun on “great jeans” was read as “great genes.” Within hours, the brand was accused of flirting with eugenics, the ad was dissected across social media, and mainstream news outlets scrambled to cover the story. Whether the controversy was intentional or not didn’t really matter - the reaction and outrage had already taken on a life of its own.

Skims found itself in similar territory earlier this year with the launch of “face shapewear,” a product announcement that triggered instant and loud debate about whether it was a genuine innovation, a joke, or just a symbol of everything that’s wrong with the beauty industry.

And, of course, Ryanair has practically built a brand personality out of provocation. Their sharp-tongued social content delights some and enrages others, but always ensures a steady stream of coverage and attention.

The appeal of the ragebait strategy is obvious. When the battle for column inches and eyeballs is so fierce, it can sometimes feel like the only reliable route to guaranteed cut-through. But the question is, is the attention worth the cost?

While outrage might bring short-term visibility, it rarely delivers lasting value. As consumers, we’re now so well-versed in shock tactics that we’re sceptical of any campaign that feels over-engineered. Journalists, too, are wary - and weary - of being used as pawns to amplify well-designed controversies. And for brands, it can have a real boy-who-cried-wolf effect: once you’re only known for chasing rage-clicks, people are less likely to take you seriously when you have something meaningful to say.

That doesn’t mean provocation doesn’t have a place in PR, though. In fact, some of the most powerful campaigns of recent years have done so well because they were provocative. The difference here is that they used the mechanics of ragebait - the surprise factor, the ability to stop people in their tracks - in service of something more meaningful. Patagonia urging customers to buy less rather than more. Dove calling out the harm of retouched beauty imagery. AEG telling people to wash their clothes less.

Even Iceland’s banned “Rang-tan” Christmas ad, which used the controversy around palm oil to spark a bigger conversation about sustainability.

These campaigns didn’t just provoke for the sake of causing a stir: they tapped into a genuine cultural insight, and offered people a reason to think or act differently. While outrage always fades eventually, integrity has a habit of sticking.