wavePod

Rage Marketing: Monetizing The Fury - Under the Influence with Terry O'Reilly | Wave AI Podcast Notes

Back to Under the Influence with Terry O'Reilly

Rage Marketing: Monetizing The Fury

Sat Jan 31 2026

This week, we look at “Rage Marketing.”Where a company or organization intentionally provokes the public to get angry. And hopefully spend money.We’ll look at the American Eagle/Sydney Sweeney contr…

Summary

Under the Influence with Terry O’Reilly

Episode Summary: "Rage Marketing: Monetizing The Fury"

Release Date: January 31, 2026
Host: Terry O’Reilly
Podcast Network: Apostrophe Podcast Network

Overview

This episode dives into the rising phenomenon of “rage marketing”—advertising designed to deliberately provoke, enrage, or create controversy for attention, engagement, and ultimately, profit or awareness. Terry O’Reilly meticulously explores how modern marketing teams exploit outrage, both intentionally and unintentionally, to drive sales and create viral campaigns. Through case studies ranging from American Eagle’s controversial jeans campaign, to Swatch’s misstep in Asia, to a cervical cancer awareness hoax–turned scandal in India, and even a cross-state pizza rivalry, O’Reilly dissects the ethics, risks, and rewards of monetizing public fury.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Cultural Backdrop: Rage Bait as Word of the Year

[03:22] O’Reilly highlights the Oxford University Press’s 2025 “Word of the Year”: Rage Bait.
- Defined as “online content deliberately designed to elicit anger or outrage by being frustrating, provocative, or offensive.”
- Usage of the term tripled in the past year.
- “Even if people never heard the term rage bait before, they instantly know what it means, and they want to talk about it, even if it makes them angry.” (Terry O’Reilly, 06:00)
Marketing mirrors the zeitgeist, so it's no surprise that rage marketing is currently a hot tactic.

2. Case Study: American Eagle & Sydney Sweeney – Double Entendre Outrage

[07:45] American Eagle's billboard campaign featuring Sydney Sweeney with the line "Sydney Sweeney has great jeans/genes" sparked public outcry.
- Pun intended between “jeans” (clothing) and “genes” (hereditary), with critics interpreting it as a nod to eugenics and beauty standards.
- Outrage spread rapidly across social media and news outlets.
The campaign drew in high-profile commentary, including from President Trump—who endorsed the ad as “the hottest ad out there.”
- White House reps called the backlash a "prime example of cancel culture run amok.”
American Eagle’s Response:
- Intended as playful; their official line: “Her jeans, her story. We’ll continue to celebrate how everyone wears their American Eagle jeans with confidence, their way.”
- CEO said the goal was to “convert the buzz into business.”
Results:
- Sales shot up 10%; stock jumped 38% during the controversy.
- All Sydney Sweeney–branded jeans sold out in a week, and additional charity donations were made.
Insightful Moment:
- “In order for a pun to work, a person must first process both the obvious expected meaning of a word along with the secondary surprising interpretation.” (Terry O’Reilly, 08:22)
- “Did American Eagle know it was creating rage marketing? The answer is yes.” (Terry O’Reilly, 12:09)
- Executives invited Sweeney to help decide how provocative to be; she replied, "Let's push it. I'm game.” (Terry O’Reilly, 13:08)

3. Case Study: Swatch – Accidental Insult in Asian Markets

[14:25] Swatch released an ad where an Asian model pulled his eyes back in a gesture widely seen as racist.
Backlash exploded on Asian social media; widespread calls for boycotts.
Swatch apologized, blaming a young marketing team for the oversight, emphasizing there was no intention to offend.
Despite the apology, public sentiment did not improve, and Swatch stocks fell 4% that Monday.
Unanswered Question:
- Why target the Asian market with a potentially offensive ad, when the region represented over a quarter of sales and was already experiencing slumps?
Quote:
- “All advertising, especially ads that are being used on a worldwide basis, go through many approval levels. It remains a mystery.” (Terry O’Reilly, 17:20)
Swatch’s broader business troubles (stock removal from Swiss indexes, declining revenues) amplify the mystery around this marketing error.

4. Case Study: Poonam Pandey’s Death Hoax – Ethics vs. Awareness

[20:02] Indian actress Poonam Pandey’s Instagram “death” was a staged hoax to raise awareness for cervical cancer.
Immediate public shock gave way to outrage, accusing the agency (Shebang) of insensitivity and manipulation.
The agency’s first apology emphasized the awareness results (cervical cancer became one of India’s most searched terms, with over 1,000 headlines), but lost clients amidst criticism.
Second apology eventually acknowledged the misstep:
- “We made a mistake not once but twice... We know the end doesn't justify the means. If there's one thing we know, it's this. Something like this will never happen again.” (Shebang Agency, 23:35)
Poonam Pandey doubled down: “Kill me, crucify me, hate me, but save someone you love.” (Poonam Pandey via Instagram, 23:48)
A $12 million lawsuit was filed against Pandey for fabricating her death.
Ethical dilemma posed: “Is it acceptable for effectiveness to trump ethics?” (Terry O’Reilly, 24:39)

5. Case Study: Connecticut’s Pizza War – Harmless Rage Marketing for Local Boost

[26:42] Connecticut Tourism launched a bold campaign in Times Square:
- Billboard: “Connecticut has the nation’s best pizza. Not you, New York.”
- Highway signs at state borders, more billboards: “There’s no shame in second place.”
New Yorkers responded with public outcry, profanity-laced hotline messages, jokes, and even Stephen Colbert’s mockery.
- “This is a little thirsty. You have zero cuisine of your own. So you... are trying to steal pizza as your official food. Stay in your lane.” (Stephen Colbert, 28:44 recounted by O’Reilly)
The campaign was openly designed to stoke rivalry (“We know what we’re doing. This isn’t about being subtle.”)
Results:
- NYC–New Haven day trips up 22%, overnight stays up 12%.
- Pizza content hits on the state’s tourism site up 50%.
- $220k spent generated $13M in media exposure.
O’Reilly’s observation:
- “The campaign didn’t just go viral, it went visceral. And that rage sparked a very effective food fight.” (Terry O’Reilly, 29:25)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

On Rage Marketing’s Logic:
- “Traditional brand building no longer guarantees awareness... companies approve riskier ads. When a brand dares to touch the third rail in court controversy, it hopes the white hot glare of the spotlight will lead to millions of dollars of free press.” (Terry O’Reilly, 30:10)
On the Risks:
- “Is visibility a metric of success? Sudden awareness generated by offensive content does not guarantee sales, and it can extend a long shadow over a brand that it can't shake.” (Terry O’Reilly, 31:20)
- “We're also living in an era where it's getting harder and harder to shock the public. We're now comfortably numb, so the shock stakes get higher and riskier.” (Terry O’Reilly, 31:38)
On Connecticut's approach:
- “Maybe Connecticut has it right. It uses rage marketing in a humorous way, then just monetized the fury.” (Terry O’Reilly, 32:03)

Important Timestamps & Segments

03:22 – Word of the year: “Rage Bait”
07:45–13:40 – American Eagle’s Sydney Sweeney “great genes/jeans” campaign
14:25–17:55 – Swatch’s racist gesture ad in Asia and fallout
20:02–24:57 – Poonam Pandey’s staged death and the ethics of outrage
26:42–32:03 – Connecticut pizza campaign and the art of harmless “food fight” rage marketing
30:10 – Broader insights: effectiveness, visibility, and the rising stakes of outrage
32:03–32:45 – Episode wrap-up, summary reflections

Conclusion

Terry O’Reilly draws a clear line from clever provocation to outright manipulation, showing how rage marketing can drive quick results—and sometimes lasting scars on brands and public trust. The episode raises challenging questions about the boundaries between attention, ethics, shock value, and sales. Ultimately, the most effective rage marketing may be that which stokes rivalry or conversation while still maintaining humor and not crossing ethical lines—a lesson, O’Reilly notes, that Connecticut seems to have mastered.

For listeners interested in how outrage, controversy, and viral buzz intersect with advertising strategy (and risk!), this episode is a compelling, thought-provoking listen.

Loading summary...

Transcript

Terry O'Reilly (0:03)

Hey, we've got some big news. For the first time ever, both Apple and Android users can subscribe to our shows. Introducing our new expanded podcast subscription called Apostrophe All Ears. For just the cost of a single cup of coffee every month, you get a lot of goodies ad free listening across our entire archive. Tsk tsk. I won't judge early access to new episodes before anybody else hears them. You get bonus stories, deeper dives and more color. You get Ask Me Anything sessions that we'll have a lot of fun with. You get first jump at our live podcast recording events, which always sell out immediately. And here's another huge bonus. You get access to all of our other Apostrophe shows, including, We Regret to Inform you, and Backstage at the Vinyl Cafe and the beatleology interviews. All ad free. All full of bonus fun. If you join In January, enjoy 20% off your first three months. Just head to the link in the description of this episode and follow the prompts.

Raj (1:19)

Hey, it's Raj and Noah. And we're back with a new season of Am I Doing It Wrong? The show that explores the all too human anxieties we have about trying to get our lives right.

Noah (1:27)

Because we're still doing a lot of stuff wrong.

Raj (1:29)

But who isn't? That's why each week we're talking about the topics that we could all use a little helping hit with. Whether it's making new friends as an adult, managing our emotions, or even dreaming.

Noah (1:38)

We'Ll be talking to experts in their fields who are definitely doing things right so the rest of us can be a bit wiser and a lot better equipped to handle whatever life throws at us.

Raj (1:47)

Subscribe now and listen to new episodes of Am I Doing It Wrong? Dropping every Thursday starting January 1st, wherever you get your podcasts.

Noah (1:54)

And for the first time ever, we're going to have full video episodes on YouTube. Because as long as there are things to get wrong, we're going to be right here to help you do them better.

Terry O'Reilly (2:03)

Love y' all Want to upskill in.

Noah (2:06)

One of the most effective ad channels out there? With Acast Ads Academy, you can learn everything you need to plan and run podcast advertising campaigns completely free.

Terry O'Reilly (2:15)

Whether you're new to audio or ready.

Terry O'Reilly (3:22)

The Oxford University Press has chosen a Word of the year since 2004. The Word of the Year is based on usage evidence drawn from its continually updated collection of 30 billion words. Those 30 billion words are compiled from news sources across the English speaking world. The goal was to identify a word or phrase that captures the defining theme or mood of the past year, demonstrating how new or emerging language has shaped our conversations and reflected cultural shifts over the past few years. The winner is chosen by Oxford's committee and 30,000 members of the public are also invited to vote. Back in 2005, the word of the Year was Podcast language from social media began to enter into short lists in 2008. That year the winner was the Word Tweet. Then in 2009, the winner was unfriend, which of course meant to remove someone as a friend on social networking sites. In 2013, the Word of the Year was Selfie, which had grown in usage by 17,000% over the previous year. In 2015, the word of the Year was actually an emoji. Not the word emoji but but an actual emoji. It was the laughing, crying emoji. It made up 20% of all emojis used in the English speaking world that year. Politics has played a big role in selecting the Word of the year. In 2016, the winner was Post Truth, reflecting how emotions and personal beliefs had a bigger influence on elections than facts did. Climate change influenced the Word of the year in 2019 with the phrase climate emergency being crowned during the pandemic, the Word of the Year was vax. Then in 2022, the winner was Goblin mode, which seemed to capture the prevailing mood of individuals who rejected the idea of returning to normal life after the pandemic. And in 2024, the winner was brain Rot, which implies the deterioration of mental capacities brought on by the over consumption of trivial online content. Which brings us to the latest Word of the Year. The Oxford University Press has chosen the phrase Rage Bait. Rage bait was defined as online content deliberately designed to elicit anger or outrage by being frustrating, provocative or offensive. Apparently the usage of the phrase rage bait goes back at least as far as 2002, but according to Oxford, the usage of the term rage bait has tripled over the past year. The President of Oxford Languages said in an interview that even if people never heard the term rage bait before, they instantly know what it means, and they want to talk about it, even if it makes them angry. The world of marketing is always a mirror of society at any given moment. So it shouldn't surprise you that rage marketing is a hot tactic right now. Advertising campaigns are being designed to provoke you and get you all steamed up. Sometimes the anger it fuels is designed to shed light on a low interest subject. And most times rage marketing is used purely to fuel outrage and press coverage.

Terry O'Reilly (8:22)

Sydney Sweeney has great genes. The billboard line sydney Sweeney has great genesis was a pun. Jeans was spelled J E A N S as in the jean she was wearing, but it was playing off the homophone genes spelled G E N E s. And if there was any question about that, the video cleared up any confusion and that fueled the outrage. In order for a pun to work, a person must first process both the obvious expected meaning of a word along with the secondary surprising interpretation. Critics instantly saw the double wordplay as a nod to eugenics, a discredited theory that held humanity could be improved through selective breeding for certain traits, that some groups of people have good genes and others have bad genes and are therefore unfit members of society. One editorial said the pun only lands because Sydney Sweeney fits the long upheld American ideal of beauty blonde, feminine, thin, attractive, symmetrical and white. The outrage began on X, then exploded to all other social media. News outlets picked up on it. A national controversy ensued. Then the White House waded in on truth Social. President Trump posted quote, sydney Sweeney, a registered Republican, has the hottest all caps ad out there. It's for American Eagle and the jeans are flying off the shelves. Go get em, Sydney. The White House communications manager called the backlash a prime example of cancel culture run amok, the result of warped, moronic, dense liberal thinking. American Eagle responded to the outcry, saying it is and always was about the jeans. Her jeans, her story. We'll continue to celebrate how everyone wears their American Eagle jeans with confidence, their way. Great jeans look good on everyone. Sydney Sweeney herself was quiet for a long time. Eventually she made a comment saying it was just a jeans ad, that she lived in jeans and that the reaction surprised her, but didn't affect her. GQ magazine published an interview with Sweeney not long after and prefaced that interview by saying it became clear that the ad campaign contained a message straight out of the lab where they cook up culture war pathogens. The reason it fueled so much outrage is context. ICE raids, the elimination of DEI policies and immigration are contentious topics right now, and those issues are a line in the sand. And any advertising campaign that dares to touch on race and beauty standards is bound to set people off. So can divisiveness drive results American Eagle says it saw a 10% rise in sales after the campaign was launched. The day after the Trump endorsement, American Eagle stock jumped 23.65% during the controversy, American Eagle stock rose a total of 38%. The company beat Wall street estimates in its second quarter. American Eagle said all Sydney Sweeney branded jeans sold out within a week and all revenue from a limited edition gene called the Sydney Gene was donated to a US Charity hotline for people who need mental health support. Amid the controversy, American Eagle released another video showing a billboard that said Sydney Sweeney has great genes spelled G E N E S. Then a blonde girl who we only see from the back but who resembles Sweeney crosses out the word jeans and replaces it with J E A N S. So did American Eagle know it was creating rage marketing? Before the campaign was launched, the American Eagle chief marketing officer told advertising trade outlets that the upcoming Sweeney ads included clever, even provocative language that was definitely going to press buttons. According to Reuters, American Eagle's vice president of marketing said that on a zoom call with Sweeney as the campaign was being developed, company executives asked her, how far do you want to push it? Without hesitation, she smirked and said, let's push it. I'm game. American Eagle's response? Challenge accepted. The CEO of American Eagle said the goal was to convert the buzz into business. Sometimes a marketer unintentionally creates an ad that results in rage baiting. In August of 2025, Swiss watchmaker Swatch released a new ad. It featured a model pulling the corners of his eyes back then up, a gesture widely interpreted as racist and disrespectful of Asian people. A backlash started immediately. The slanted eyed gesture was labeled deliberate discrimination. It created outrage across Asian social media. People condemned the ad, calling for immediate boycotts and punishment by regulators. But that move by Swatch didn't quite make sense. First, the model in the ad was Asian, not Caucasian. Next, swatch typically gets 27% of its revenue from China, Hong Kong and Macau. So Asia is incredibly important to the watchmaker. On top of that, revenue was slumping. In 2024, revenue for Swatch fell 14.6% in China. In July of 2025, Swatch reported an 11.2% drop in net sales for the first six months of the year, saying the slump was exclusively attributable to sluggish demand in China. Swatch needed to stoke sales in China, so why mock Asians with an ad? When the backlash went viral, Swatch immediately reacted on Instagram and Chinese social media sites, acknowledging the concerns regarding the model in the ad, and deleted the promotional material worldwide, saying, we sincerely apologize for any distress and misunderstanding this may have caused. Interestingly, Swatch went on to say that it was a faux pas by a young, motivated team who were not aware of the extent of the gestures. At no time was it the intention to offend or hurt anyone with the pictures. According to reports. The apology did little to appease critics. When the Asian public was interviewed on the street about the offending ad, some said the ad must have been done by foreigners who don't understand or respect Asians. Some wondered why the Asian model himself didn't flag the gesture as offensive. The apology was issued on the weekend and by Monday, Swatch's stock price fell as much as 4%, according to news reports. This incident was the latest setback for Swatch, whose shares have fallen by more than half since 2023. It doesn't make sense that Swatch would mock the Asian market when it needed the Asian market, especially since it was already having troubles. Back In September of 2021, Swatch was removed from the blue chip Swiss Market index. Then In November of 2025, it was announced that Swatch was to be removed the following month from the benchmark Swiss Leader index after a decline in the Swiss watchmaker's capitalization and lower trading volumes in its shares. And with Asia accounting for more than a quarter of its revenues, it's mystifying how an offensive gesture could slip through the approval process. All advertising, especially ads that are being used on a worldwide basis, go through many approval levels. It remains a mystery. Swatch now says the slip up didn't create a crisis and it's business as usual. The real crisis, a Swatch spokesperson said, was the 39% tariffs Trump has leveled on Swiss watchmakers. When we come back, a death enrages the public. If you're enjoying this episode, you might.

Terry O'Reilly (21:23)

Poonam Pandy was in fact alive and well. It was all a stunt to raise awareness of cervical cancer. At first, the public was in shock and didn't know how to react to the news. Then the outrage and backlash set in. People took to social media to call the stunt ridiculous, in bad taste and disgusting. At this point, the digital advertising agency behind the stunt, called Shebang, issued a statement. It said, to start off, we would like to extend a heartfelt apology, especially towards those who have been triggered as a result of having faced or having a loved one face the hardships of any kind of cancer. Our actions were driven by a singular mission to elevate awareness about cervical cancer. Shebang said cervical cancer was the second most frequent cancer affecting Indian women. The agency went on to say that cervical cancer became one of the most searched terms on Google as a result of the stunt, and pointed out that India's financial minister had mentioned funding for cervical cancer vaccines the day before, but it got no headlines. Conversely, for the first time in the country's history, cervical cancer attracted over 1,000 headlines. Still, people were outraged, feeling the apology felt more like a justification than a genuine expression of regret. Then Shebang began to lose clients, including a huge pharmaceutical account. That prompted Shebang to take the initial apology down and issue another statement which read, we made a mistake not once but twice to everyone, those hurt or not hurt by the campaign, to our staff, partners, friends, families and the young talent reconsidering their career choice to be in advertising, we are deeply sorry. We know the end doesn't justify the means. If there's one thing we know, it's this. Something like this will never happen again. While a small group of people praised the stunt for elevating the topic of cervical cancer, most criticized it for being insensitive, saying death was not a joke. The press was also criticized for not fact checking the story. Interestingly, the more cervical cancer dominated the news, which was the goal, the more the controversy deepened. Pandy herself doubled down with an Instagram post saying, kill me, crucify me, hate me, but save someone you love. A 12 million dollar lawsuit was brought against Pandy for fabricating a false conspiracy of death and for orchestrating a death hoax to toy with people's emotions, betraying the trust of millions. The rage just wouldn't go away. The entire SEGA raised an interesting question. There is no doubt the stunt raised the awareness of cervical cancer to historic levels. But is it acceptable for effectiveness to trump ethics? When we come back, the state of Connecticut enrages the state of New York.

Terry O'Reilly (28:07)

After the beef, Connecticut Pizza takes the the win. In what world you Connecticut? One appalled New Yorker called Connecticut pizza just hot bread with ambition. Another said, what the hell is a Connecticut pizza? Even Stephen Colbert got in on the action. Come off it, Connecticut. This is a little thirsty. You have zero cuisine of your own. So you who sit right next to New York and New Jersey are trying to steal pizza as your official food. Why? Because you have one town that makes good pizza. Stay in your lane. Even the mayor of New York made a statement saying there are 8.5 million New Yorkers with about 35 million opinions. But one thing we can all agree on is that Connecticut pizza could never compare to an iconic NYC slice. Go back home with your pizza, Connecticut Tourism the marketing goal was to get more tourists to Connecticut by driving media coverage and online chatter. But there was a secondary strategy to increase state pride. As for using rage marketing, the Connecticut chief marketing officer said, we know what we're doing. This isn't about being subtle. We're telling the world we're the best and we invite the world to experience it for themselves. And it wasn't the first time Connecticut has been thinking outside the pizza box. In 2021, state legislators proposed a bill to make pizza the official state food of Connecticut. In 2024, US state representative Rosa DeLauro took an entourage of pizza chefs and media to Washington to celebrate her reading a statement into the Congressional Record on the House floor declaring Connecticut the Pizza capital of the United States. As it turned out, the 2025 pizza campaign moved the needle in measurable ways. Day trips from NYC to New Haven, Connecticut rose 22% year over year. Overnight. NYC to New Haven stays were up 12%. Pizza related content on the Visit Connecticut website jumped 50%, and the state has created a curated tour of Connecticut's most beloved pizzerias called Connecticut Pizza Trail. The state had spent $220,000 on the pizza campaign, but ended up with $13 million worth of exposure. Where Connecticut was once a drive through state, it was now becoming a drive to state. The campaign didn't just go viral, it went visceral. And that rage sparked a very effective food fight. It's an interesting time in the marketing world. Traditional brand building no longer guarantees awareness, and increased revenues and shoppers with tight budgets and short attention spans have prompted companies to approve riskier ads. When a brand dares to touch the third rail in court controversy, it hopes the white hot glare of the spotlight will lead to millions of dollars of free press. And that free press can sometimes lead to millions of dollars in sales revenue. But it's always a risk. American Eagle and the cervical cancer stunt in India both strained the answer to the question, does effectiveness trump ethics? There's another question, too. Is visibility a metric of success? Sudden awareness generated by offensive content does not guarantee sales, and it can extend a long shadow over a brand that it can't shake. We're also living in an era where it's getting harder and harder to shock the public. We're now comfortably numb, so the shock stakes get higher and riskier. Maybe Connecticut has it right. It uses rage marketing in a humorous way, then just monetized the fury when you're under the influence. I'm Terry O'Reilly. This episode was recorded in the Tear Stream Mobile Recording studio producer Debbie O'Reilly chief sound engineer Jeff Devine Research Alison Pinches Theme music by Casey Pick, Jeremiah Pick and James Ayton. Tunes provided by APM Music. Follow me at Terry Oinfluence this podcast is powered by Acast. Terry's top slogans of all time. Number 19 fluke transport trucks. If it's on time, it's a fluke. See you next week.