E.L.F. Cosmetics recently launched its latest campaign, featuring comedian Matt Rife alongside drag queen Heidi N Closet, as personal injury lawyers working at “e.l.f.ino & Schmarnes,” dedicated to getting the best prices on cosmetics. The problem? Matt Rife famously opened his 2023 Netflix special with a domestic violence joke, remained unapologetic about the joke in the face of public criticism, and has openly stated that women were not his target audience. 

All of this begs the question: why would E.L.F., a cosmetics brand whose customer base is predominantly made up of women, hire Matt Rife to star in one of their ads?

This wasn’t just an off-the-mark marketing decision, but a PR blunder of epic proportions as the brand quickly faced public backlash and was forced to issue a response. In an Instagram post E.L.F. stated, “You know us, we’re always listening and we’ve heard you. This campaign aimed to humorously spotlight the beauty of injustice. We understand we missed the mark with people we care about in our e.l.f community. While E.L.F.ino & schmarness closes today, we’ll continue to make the case against overpriced beauty.”

While the brand publicly acknowledged its misstep, plenty of people were quick to point out how its apology seemed insincere. E.L.F. chief marketing officer, Kory Marchisotto in an interview with Business of Fashion expressed how the brand was supposedly shocked by the backlash, saying, “Obviously, we’re very surprised,” she said. “There is a big gap between our intention and how this missed the mark for some people… We always aim to deliver positivity, and this one didn’t. So we find ourselves in a position where, quite honestly, that doesn’t feel good for us.”

Was it a surprise, though? Or was the decision to hire the comedian intentional? As the old PR adage goes, “any publicity is good publicity,” and they absolutely garnered public attention with their advertisement, even if that attention was public ire.

E.L.F. isn’t the first brand to debut a celebrity ad campaign that was destined to garner controversy. American Eagle’s now infamous campaign with Sydney Sweeney, “Sydney Sweeney Has Great Jeans,” was allegedly made to celebrate denim. However, the play on words instantly sparked comparisons to eugenics as customers and the public at large drew attention to the sinister meaning they felt was lurking behind the campaign.

In the ad, Sweeney utters, “Genes are passed down from parents to offspring, often determining traits like hair color, personality, and even eye color. My genes are blue,” all while putting on a pair of jeans. A brand launching an ad featuring a blonde-haired white woman discussing genetics was always bound to draw comparisons to eugenics. The question becomes whether or not the brand intentionally created this ad for shock value. 

Shock advertising or shockvertising is a marketing strategy that intentionally uses provocative, controversial, or unexpected content to not only grab attention, but to elicit an emotional response from the audience. The overall goal with shockvertising is to create a lasting impression. However, utilizing these tactics also comes at the risk of negative backlash and reputational damage. Actions have consequences, and when it comes to advertising, those consequences often come in the form of negative publicity, boycotts, and the alienation of a consumer base. 

American Eagle released a statement on Instagram regarding its good jeans campaign, writing, “is and always was about the jeans. Her jeans. Her story. We’ll continue to celebrate how everyone wears their AE jeans with confidence, their way. Great jeans look good on everyone.”

The choice to create a provocative campaign that elicits comparisons to eugenics is one thing. The PR decision to refrain from making a public apology regarding the response to said campaign is another, and it reinforces the belief that this campaign was specifically created for shock value, and with the understanding of the racist implications said campaign would draw. 

Shock value is a powerful marketing tool when utilized correctly. In order to create a successful shockvertising campaign, one must have an understanding of the potential consequences and carefully consider the target audience of the campaign. These factors are crucial in the decision-making that leads to a successful advertising campaign. As the fallout of these recent campaigns continues to grow, it has become clear what happens when a brand does not know its audience and continues to buck said audience in the face of criticism.

As marketers, it is not our job to solely sell a product. We must also be intentional with our strategies and weigh the potential risks associated with provocative campaigns. As public relations professionals, our job is to minimize the amount of reputational damage done to a brand and to respond to criticism in a way that is both genuine and does not result in the loss of consumer trust. 

On these two fronts, these brands have visibly failed. What we as marketing and public relations professionals can take away from these latest blunders is the lessons of a cautionary tale. There is a thin line between going viral for a shocking campaign and the volatility and reputational damage that comes with missing the mark. Yes, they say that with great risk comes great reward, but I say: play stupid games and win stupid prizes. Shock marketing can generate headlines, but not always the kind you want.