← The Business of Fashion Podcast
The Business of Fashion Podcast
Why Are So Many Brands Faking Scandals?
00:20:21
The Business of Beauty’s Priya Rao and Rachael Griffiths discuss how beauty brands are moving beyond traditional social media content to experiment with “rage bait.”
Loading summary
Transcript51 lines
- [00:00]
A
Foreign. Welcome to the debrief from the business of fashion where each week we delve into Our most popular BoF professional stories with the correspondents who created them. I'm senior correspondent Sheena Butler Young. If you've been scrolling your social media feed lately, you might have noticed something strange happening in the world of beauty. In a sea of get ready with me, get the look and try this. Blush or lipstick? Some brands are doing something very different. Staging fake manufacturing controversies, apologizing for made up mishaps, or even pranking your favorite celebrities. It's called rage bait. In a saturated market where attention is the most valuable currency, these brands are betting that a negative reaction is better than no reaction at all. But as rage bait becomes a go to strategy in an increasingly fragmented attention economy, the question is how long before it stops working? Can self induced outrage and the pursuit of virality actually drive sales? Or is it a gimmick that risks eroding trust with the brand's most loyal customers? Joining us this week are Business of Beauty executive editor Priya Rao and senior editorial associate Rachel Griffiths. Priya, Rachel, welcome to the debrief.
- [01:16]
B
Hi, Sheena.
- [01:17]
C
Hi. Thank you for having us.
- [01:20]
A
So we should probably start by acknowledging that rage bait isn't exactly new on or offline. Some would say marketing is inherently provocative. You never want to put something out as a marketer and people feel nothing or they don't react. Priya, why don't you help us understand, like what's so different about this so called rage bait of the Internet era? What does it mean? How is it different from what I was thinking of, which is like in our era, Priyank, our brain on drugs. Do you remember this commercial, this iconic commercial that was meant to provoke people and to actually kind of scare you into not using drugs. So this is not new. Why is it different now?
- [01:55]
B
I think what's different now is that there's saturation in marketing today. There's so many more brands, there's so many more companies. Obviously we're different, dealing with different platforms from TikTok to Instagram. I mean, there was no TikTok or Instagram or social media back when we were watching eggs fry for our brain is on drugs, you know, so we're dealing with so many more different platforms. We're dealing with so many different brands and materials that brands today have to do something even more outrageous just to grab two seconds of our attention. I think, you know, right now you're switching between different platforms and channels all of the time and influencers as well, so for you to really break through, you need to have something that says, wow, I'm gonna stop. Stop scrolling and pay attention.
- [02:41]
A
So the industry is essentially batting that engagement, even if it fuels anger or confusion, is sort of a prerequisite for survival. And to be clear, the, the. Your brain on drugs as the frying egg was meant to make us not do drugs. This is meant to make us, like, buy a blush or a lip gloss. Right. Rachel, why don't you talk about what brands are contending with in, like, the algorithm age? Like, it's, it's all. It's sort of like you have to really think outside of the box.
- [03:06]
C
Definitely. And one thing that came up when I was researching this piece is just how desperate brands are to break through. And things such as comments and follow counts, they no longer accurately represent engagement on platforms like Instagram because they're so flooded with bots. So they need something that people are going to share and people are going to save. And most of the time, outrage or shock or surprise are those things you're going to say for later or send to your friends.
- [03:32]
A
Can we talk through a few of the examples that came up in your story? The big one was Lancome. It was the. It was both interesting because it had a celebrity tilt, but also I think because Lancome is a prestige luxury brand, people didn't expect it to sort of go into this, what some might say is a gimmicky route. So can you talk a little bit about those examples?
- [03:52]
C
So Lancome did a strategy where they sent out PR mailers and they put the wrong names on those mailers, and then they had people film videos, some of which were staged, such as Isabella Rossellini received a package for Demi Moore and was kind of very, what about me? I'm not going to send it to her. But then some influencers really did just receive a package that wasn't for them. And I think this was a tamer version, because if you do look at some of those videos, Isabella Rosselli, bless her incredible actress, she phoned that one in. You know, she wasn't really trying to convince people, but I think that's kind of corresponds with the more luxury aspect of that brand. I think if they had come out and done something really, truly outrageous, then it wouldn't have really fitted with the. What they were trying to do.
- [04:39]
A
Priya, what do you think about this? Like, which. Which of these struck. Struck a chord with people and what. What fell flat? Because there was tons of examples. Like, what stood out to You?
- [04:49]
B
Well, I actually thought the Lancome examples were better when the influencers themselves were doing it. Like Rachel said, Isabella Rossellini live and die by her. But yes, she wasn't selling that. The package was actually for Jimmy Moore.
- [05:02]
A
She was in on the joke. Right. Like she was in on the joke and others were not.
- [05:06]
B
Right. So I think some of the influencer ones were better. I actually liked the colourpop one where they were just like saying that, posted an apology square and said, you know, we want to apologize, but basically to get more attention because we see other brands doing this and they get a lot of attention. And I think the reason these things work, especially for smaller brands, is that they don't have the marketing budgets that a Lancome, which is owned by l' Oreal have. So they need to be a little bit more gamified, a little bit more in the wheel. It's dirty to kind of get that sort of attention. Lancome arguably doesn't need it. Right. But they need to also compete with younger brands who are doing that as well. So there is was a little bit more of a softer, tamer version of what guerrilla marketing could really look like when it comes to rage bait.
- [05:56]
A
What was also interesting about the colourpop one is Rachel can correct me if I'm wrong. I think they posted the reveal of the product first, it did not perform and then they deleted it and then they came out with the apology or the fake apology post on the grid. What does something that that tell you? Engagement is working in 2026. Because if you do say, hey, look at this amazing new blush or gloss, people seem not to care or notice. But if you do it another way.
- [06:23]
C
No, that's absolutely right. And the funny thing is, I chatted to the social media lead, Michelle, and she told me that they chose to keep it up because they knew that not so many people had seen it, but that it would get a halo effect from this other post that they did and this other post that they did. Like Priya said, they told me it was relatively low lift. She knocked it up in an hour. She put it up on Instagra. It was their second most engaged post year to date, earned them a couple thousand new followers. And then there was a huge halo effect on the original post, which was, I think, revealing a new formula for blush sticks, which is one of their products. So I think the fact that they knew that enough people hadn't seen that original post that it wouldn't be a dead giveaway is kind of telling about how Effective these surprising or rage beauty posts can be.
- [07:09]
A
What about the comments? Like what were people saying? Because the worst thing you want is for the comments to go objectively negative. Or people like this is stupid guys. Were people engaging with the fact that it was a joke, like haha, good one. Or did they say something else?
- [07:23]
C
People seem to love the colourpop one and I asked about this specifically and they said that they counted a handful of comments that were annoyed. I think part of it is that ColourPop's entire branding, from the IPs that they do collections with to just their tone of voice on Instagram, is very, very playful. I can imagine if it was a different kind of brand then people might feel like they had been. The trust had been broken. But I think for colourpop fans they're kind of used to this haha thing and it also it's colourpop aren't really a. A brand that's been had a lot of controversy. So I think that's why people weren't really annoyed in the comments.
- [07:59]
A
So the other interesting example in your story is, is this brand DO its founder, Charlotte, she's known for being sort of provocative online, engaging with her audience. I've seen her debunk conspiracy theories. She also played around with this idea, how did she do it for D?
- [08:14]
C
So they did a post pretending to rebrand as an AI brand off the back of the shoe company Allbirds rebrand as an AI brand. And actually that post was to not promote a new product, but it was to promote the brand Substack, where they'd hired a writer to do an opinion piece on how AI influencers are flooding the industry. But Charlotte, as you pointed out, Sheena, she's built up a really strong reputation online for pushing back against things in industry she doesn't agree with and for campaigning for things that she wants to see implemented. So that's why I think something is controversial as AI really worked for do and everyone in the comments was kind of like, I knew you wouldn't do me like that basically. But their post was really great. They even had like a little credit on the bottom from like DO AI and they did like a mock up of what the product would have looked like. So it was really well done.
- [09:03]
A
Well, it brings me to the other point that it seems like it works for certain founders, certain brands and certain categories. What is the the secret playbook for when you're going to do this? What kind of brand do you have to be? What kind of relationship does the spokesperson or the founder have to have with the community to make this work. What. What does the playbook look like? Rachel?
- [09:21]
C
I think you need to have a track record of not taking yourself too seriously and doing things tongue in cheek. I think if you're a brand potentially like elf who has had to apologize a lot, you should probably refrain from pay fake apologies because you might have to do a real apology soon. But then do. For example, they've just got that really strong trust with their audience. So that's one way that you can do it. But there's other ways like this go wrong that aren't necessarily about your brand. Like if you rage people too, or you trick people into things not sorry, let me try that again. Or you trick people into thinking something untrue has happened and then they just kind of feel like, what was the point of that?
- [09:59]
A
Priya, what would you add in terms of like, you've been in the beauty space for a very long time. You've seen brands come and go and dabble in all these new, these new trends, these new ways of engaging in such a fractured attention economy. What do you think the playbook for this, making this work and then it falling flat or backfiring on you. What's.
- [10:19]
B
What's the difference between success refreshing that Lancome did. But I also know, and this is kind of like inside baseball, you know, Lancome and l' Oreal have like this whole guerrilla marketing team creative agency within l' Oreal that's working on campaigns like this and the tube campaigns last year with like the kissing with Eswick and Chad Michael Murray from like those like 2000s heartthrobs and stuff. And so they have been gotten really good at acting like an indie brand within a larger conglomerate. I think for younger brands you have to really think about where you play. Like if you're a very, if you're a very serious brand that's talking about luxury or sustainability or, you know, men's rights all the time, it's going to feel very strange for all of a sudden to be like, gotcha. Like, we aren't actually selling this, you know, lipstick. And I think we also see this every year when people are also like doing the April Fool's jokes with. Totally annoys me because I my birthday's on April Fools and I'm always like, is that your birthday? But like, it always kind of feels like wa wa. This is like Losersville, you know. But so I think it feels like when younger brands are doing it, like, I think colourpop's a really good example because they are young, they are fresh, they don't take themselves too seriously. They can play in the Serena, I think Charlotte specifically because she is the founder of that brand. I can't imagine a lot of other founders being able to do that. And she also is provocative in the way that she will talk about women's rights and she will talk about Trump and she will talk about all of these things, but in the same tone. So it doesn't feel like force when she's kind of like faking you out with an AI All Birds rebrand.
- [11:57]
A
The confusion trap is also another interesting one. Wasn't it the grooming brand Schick that announced a weird brand ambassador partnership with Nick Jonas but then confused people about him launching his own brand? Rachel, can you tell us a little bit about that and why that they went too far down the realm of confusion?
- [12:14]
C
Yeah, they got me and I was fuming because I brought it up in a beauty pitch meeting and I was like, guys, so this brand, they basically Nick Jonas did a post on Instagram that seemed to be teasing that he was launching a skincare brand, which is not out of the realm of possibility. It was kind of like, you all know I really care about skincare. And then loads of beauty trade publications picked up on my latest Nick Jonas launching skincare and it turned out he was just being announced as an ambassador for this grooming brand. And while definitely this will have got them way more attention than just a regular announcement, I think people were annoyed and disappointed because people really thought that this was going to be a new brand. Myself included it.
- [12:54]
A
We'll be back with more of the debrief right after this.
- [12:58]
D
Picture this. It's late at night and you're scrolling through your feeds when all of a sudden you see it. That one product that you've been looking for. You click on the link, add to cart, maybe even shop around a little more before finally hitting checkout. As you're filling in your address, you realize you don't have your card anywhere near you. That's when you see it. That purple pay button that has all your information saved, making checking out as simple as a simple tap of your screen. Shopify is the commerce platform behind millions of businesses around the world and 10% of all e commerce in the US from household names like Allbirds and Chubbies to brands just getting started. Best yet, Shopify is your commerce expert with world class expertise in everything from managing inventory to international shipping to product processing returns and beyond. See less carts going abandoned and more sales go with Shopify and their Shop Pay button. Sign up for your $1 per month trial today at shopify.com BOFPodcast go to shopify.com BOFPodcast that's shopify.com BOFPodc.
- [14:08]
E
Now more people than ever can bring in their bill for a better deal at Verizon. Got AT&T or T Mobile? We got you Xfinity or Spectrum. You too. So tell your friends, your family, your quirky neighbor Jeff, grab your megaphone and yell it from the rooftop. Get a better deal at Verizon because chances are anyone in shouting distance is included. Bring in your at&t t Mobile, Xfinity or Spectrum bill and we'll give you a better deal on the best network Come by Verizon today. Best Network based on RootMetric's best overall mobile network performance US 2nd Half 2025 all rights reserved. Must provide recent consumer mobile bill in the name of the person redeeming the deal. Additional terms, conditions and restrictions apply.
- [14:38]
F
While every other channel is fighting for your customers attention, podcasts are where they've already given it. No one accidentally listens to a podcast for 45 minutes. They choose to be here. They trust the voice in their ears. And when that voice talks about your brand, it doesn't sound like advertising. It sounds like a recommendation from a friend. ACAST gives you that trust at scale, digital precision, host read authenticity and performance data that proves it worked. Don't fight for attention. Buy it with Acast. Learn more by visiting acast.com advertise.
- [15:15]
A
Back to the point of People are so confused. You've not just got the social media world confused, you've got the beauty editors confused. You've got your consumers confused. Everyone's just not getting the message. The goal of this is engagement. Is it sales? And what is you talk about the marketing funnel. When does it actually translate to sales? When you do something like this, do people say oh my gosh, I was it was so funny that they apologize for this fake announcement and now I'm going to go buy this blush or this mascara. Where does sales come into the equation?
- [15:44]
B
That's a good question.
- [15:45]
A
Sheena.
- [15:45]
D
I don't know.
- [15:46]
B
I mean honestly, like, I mean these are really good attention grabbing stunts but I don't know when that does translate to sales because it really feels like to me a lot of this is about awareness. Like for Lancome it was about introducing that new collection, that longevity collection that they were launching for colourpop. It was around that new blush that they were reformulating and then for do is just to really be part of the conversation around Allbirds. So I don't know if there is a direct line to sales and I don't know if that's really the point
- [16:15]
A
because consumers may comment but they don't. I think there's. You comment on a controversial video, you save it, you share it and that engagement is amazing. But do they actually eventually at some point put a product in their cart and. And maybe to Priya's point, it's so far down the marketing funnel that you don't expect it to be that right away.
- [16:33]
C
I suppose I think with something like do if you have the credibility that you can do a fake out AI post that maybe you're going to gain a follow who is really attracted to the fact that you really have things that you stand by and then them following you and being in your ecosystem means that maybe they'll notice when a new product comes out. The same with colourpop, it's about having eyeballs on the brand. I think eventually that could lead to sales. But when I asked about, you know, the metrics that these people were using to measure success, it was all to do with shares and saves and things like that. It never was actually how it related
- [17:06]
A
to sales, which I guess is the point of social media engagement. Anyways, let's also now talk about the limitations of some of this. One of the points you already mentioned, Rachel, is that if you're a brand that even if you're not a brand like Elf that has had to apologize before. One clear cut in issue is if you're issuing a fake apology and then something comes up and you have to actually apologize for it. Now you've created this whole dilution. What other risks do you see and sort of or limitations of this? The other one is probably that you can only do this once.
- [17:36]
C
Yeah, I think the boy who cried wolf thing is a big one because you never know what's around the corner and brands can make a misstep at any time. But I think the point that Priya made about April Fools is that probably the first year that branded April Fools post everyone was like this is so funny. But it's, you know, 10, 15 years in, it's like eye roll this again. So I feel like you have to go first. And then I was speaking to Katie Martin who works for Front Row Group and she was saying you either have to go first or you have to be super relevant. But then she went, actually no, I think you just have to go first. So Lancome went first completely. But Colourpop even said to me, we weren't the first ones to do this. I think a cafe in New York did it. So it's not just beauty specific thing. So I think those are the main limitations. Just making sure that you're not the type of brand that's going to make a huge blunder and also making sure that you're not just being the fifth or sixth post in a row doing the exact same thing.
- [18:28]
A
At some point does, you know, engaging in the. I think the word that I saw come up is this chaotic creator space. Does it actually impact how seriously people take the efficacy of your product? Is that a limitation at some point for you to. People start saying this brand that's, you know, on social media, sending out fake packages or making fake apologies. It's like the Wendy's of it all. Like when you get too much of a personality on social media as a brand, but then you're also playing in the space of product efficacy. Is there a risk at some point that people think that you're, you're just a big joke?
- [19:04]
B
I think absolutely. I think maybe this wasn't, I mean, I certainly enjoyed the Lancome Skincare Isabella Rossellini roast. But you know, I think maybe this wasn't the right tactic for this launch because this launch is a more expensive launch. It's about efficacy, it's about longevity, it's about for like an older customer. So are they in on the joke? Whereas I think for Juicy Tubes, which is what they did last year was like kissing booth kind of thing with the heart heartthrobs of the WB and the cw. You know, I think that makes a lot more sense. Like it's a colorful product that people use in like a trend based way. So I think there's more fluidity and probably leniency to use it when you are playing with something that's more, less serious. Right. If you're talking about medical grade skincare, maybe this is not the right thing for you. Or if you're talking about like $500 fragrances, like okay, this is, it's. Maybe you should be a little bit more serious about it because the money I'm spending is serious. But if it's something viral, like a lip tit, maybe not.
- [20:04]
A
Do you both think each of you that at some point brands are going to reach the bottom of this social media algorithm chase? I mean, I think we always think we are, but at some point this, it starts to get a little bit old. Constantly trying to come up with something new in the era of algorithms. Like when does this reach the bottom? Have we seen the last rage bait? Like, I think this is rage bait season. Does this go on into perpetuity or are we reaching an end of this?
- [20:32]
B
I think we're just at the beginning. I mean, honestly, like, if you think about the polarization on the Internet or in the world right now, people are just pissed. People are, you know, they're pissed about so many serious issues, but they are primed to react. So I think knowing that brands are just going to try to tap into that, tap into that fury, that anxiety, that excitement, and I'm sure it's just going to be another case of like people one upping each other over and over again.
- [20:59]
A
Rachel, is it a race to the bottom or. Because one upping is also a race to the bottom very easily for some.
- [21:05]
C
I was going to say it is a race to the bottom. I think that that Sydney Sweeney jeans ad last year just blew the top of this thing. People realize that the main currency to tap into is rage and anger. And I think that these kind of tame examples that I spoke about, the Lancome one especially, but even the Colourpop one that was like, oopsie, I think we're actually going to see it maybe within the year, people just genuinely trying to annoy people. But then I always think this about the Sydney Sweeney thing. Again, if you build your entire community off of people who get off on basically other people being annoyed, what's the longevity there? Like, what's the long term strategy? But I think we're definitely going to have a few posts shared this year that are going to make us angry.
- [21:49]
A
Make us angry. Sounds like a winning marketing strategy. That might be a nice note to end on. Priya and Rachel, thank you so much for joining us.
- [21:57]
B
Thanks, Sheena.
- [21:58]
C
Thank you.
- [22:00]
A
Please be sure to check out Rachel's full article titled why are so many Many Beauty Brands Faking Scandals and Priya's weekly newsletter full coverage@businessofashion.com this and other stories are available to BoF Professional subscribers only and you can find all the links in the episode notes. You've been listening to the debrief, produced and edited by Olivia Davies and Angel Nemob. I'm Sheena Butler Young. We'll be back next week with a new episode. Thanks so much for joining us and be sure to follow us wherever you get your podcasts.
- [22:40]
D
This message comes from Jackson. Taxes aren't something you can only think about once a year. With investments planning for tax day is year round. Fortunately, Jackson offers tax efficient products. Visit Jackson.com for more information on how our products can make your tax bill a little bit less painful. Jackson is short for Jackson Financial Incorporated, Jackson National Life Insurance Company, Lansing, Michigan and Jackson National Life Insurance Company of New York, Purchase, New York.
- [23:05]
G
Hey honey, it's Mom. Did you know if we switch to Verizon, we can get four phones for $0 plus four lines for $25 a line? Call me back me again. That's just $100 a month for four lines on unlimited welcome plus four phones. No trade in needed. Call me. It's Mom. America's Best Network Verizon. That's the one we're talking about. I'll send you a text.
- [23:26]
H
America's Best Network based on RootMetrics Best Overall Mobile Network Performance US Second Half 2025 Four new lines and a limited welcome and autopay. See verizon.com for details.