In today’s attention-driven world, getting noticed often matters more than getting liked. From The Ordinary to Skims and American Eagle, several big brands have been accused of “ragebaiting,” crafting campaigns that provoke outrage and spark heated debates online. The tactic, though risky, works in one sense: it grabs attention fast. But experts say the long-term damage may outweigh the short-term buzz.

Social and influencer marketing consultant Lia Haberman warns that “the short-term bump in attention is not really worth the trade-off of damaging brand equity.”

How Ragebait Works: Anger as Engagement

Ragebait thrives on emotion. The more polarized and reactive audiences become, the more platforms reward controversial content with visibility. Some creators like Winta Zesu and Louisa Melcher have built large followings by sparking online debates, while others grow by amplifying outrage around brand campaigns. For brands, the temptation is clear: rage sells. Yet, as online spaces grow more divisive, even an innocent campaign can quickly be misinterpreted and turned into a public relations nightmare. Haberman calls this “a sloppy era,” where lack of diligence, not intent, often leads to accidental outrage.

When Controversy Backfires

American Eagle’s campaign featuring actress Sydney Sweeney is a prime example. The brand said it intended to promote optimism and self-expression, but many viewers interpreted it as insensitive. While the company saw short-term positive results, experts like Megan Morass of Full Fat agency question its long-term impact on trust and brand value. “It’s a risky tactic,” she says, “because you’re intentionally provoking negative emotions.”

In contrast, Gap’s joyful denim campaign with KATSEYE went viral for all the right reasons, built on positive energy and authenticity. The difference shows that feel-good marketing still wins.

The Fine Line Between Fun and Fury

Not all ragebait is harmful. Doritos’ playful campaign teasing a switch from triangle to square chips drew laughs instead of backlash. The difference lies in tone and intent. “That is really nicely done ragebait, if there is such a thing,” says Morass. “It’s nothing serious. It’s not going to create emotional or behavioral triggers.” Still, few brands can balance that line successfully. For every harmless stunt, there are campaigns that backfire, eroding consumer trust. TikTok creator Dulma Altan notes that while stars like the Kardashians and Gwyneth Paltrow seem to harness outrage effectively, most brands don’t have that luxury.

The Real Risks of Rage Marketing

Controversy can draw attention, but it also drives unfollows and fatigue. Consumers are increasingly wary of manipulative tactics and may disengage from brands that fuel negativity. Worse, once a brand becomes known for outrage, it’s difficult to reclaim authenticity. As Altan points out, “Brands might start to see backlash not because of the campaign itself, but because people are tired of the emotional rollercoaster.”

Key risks include:

• Loss of audience trust and brand equity over time

• Mental fatigue and declining engagement from oversaturation

• Difficulty rebuilding a positive brand image after controversy

Morass emphasizes that marketers must take responsibility for how their content affects audience emotions, adding, “We’re responsible for uplifting and empowering our consumers, not bringing them down.”

Why Most Ragebait Is Accidental

Despite how it looks, many marketers aren’t intentionally provoking outrage; they’re simply careless. Haberman believes that what’s labeled as ragebait is often a result of poor research and lack of cultural awareness. The recent e.l.f. Cosmetics partnership with comedian Matt Rife illustrates this. The brand overlooked Rife’s controversial jokes about domestic violence, which led to consumer backlash. “That’s a great example of not spending maybe an extra half-hour scrolling through somebody’s feed,” says Haberman. A little diligence could have prevented the fallout.

When Algorithms Amplify Anger

Sometimes, outrage isn’t organic. Social intelligence reports have found that certain backlash waves are artificially amplified by bots or politically motivated accounts. Cracker Barrel’s minimalist rebrand faced such an issue, forcing the company to reverse its decision. Similarly, conservative influencers helped escalate American Eagle’s controversy. This manipulation reveals a deeper problem: social media platforms profit from emotional engagement, even when it’s harmful.

What this means for brands:

• Online outrage can be exaggerated or manufactured

• Algorithms reward emotionally charged content regardless of accuracy

• Brands need social listening tools to detect artificial amplification early

Altan adds, “The smartest engineers in the world are being paid to keep us enraged. The odds are stacked against us.”

How Brands Can Stay Safe in the Outrage Era

As the digital landscape grows more polarized, brands must be proactive about defining and communicating their values. When companies remain vague, audiences will interpret their silence in ways that might not align with their intentions. “If you don’t put your stance and your beliefs and your values out there,” Haberman advises, “somebody is going to ascribe those values to you.”

In practice, this means building campaigns with empathy, cultural awareness, and integrity while steering clear of cheap controversy.

Ragebait may deliver clicks, but it rarely builds loyalty. The marketing landscape today demands more than attention; it demands trust. Brands that chase outrage risk becoming irrelevant once the uproar fades. Those that lead with authenticity and purpose will build something much harder to replicate, genuine connection.