The idea that controversy in marketing enhances emotional triggers which lead to higher engagement, increased traffic and other metrics such as comments and shares can be seen clearly in one of Procter & Gamble brands, Gillette, and their ‘We Believe: The Best Men Can Be’ short film that was released earlier this year (Gillette 2019). Gillette, a multi-billion-pound brand intentions were to address ‘toxic masculinity’ (bullying, sex harassment) in wake of the #metoo movement. However, even though this campaign was not well received with a large number of Gillette consumers feeling that they were being ‘tarnished with the same brush’, after a quick analysis, you can gain a good insight as to some of the results it achieved.

Whilst this is possibly the most extreme example of controversy in marketing from a giant corporation, the results in terms of brand awareness and social metrics must have exceeded their projections (albeit negatively). After using Social Blade to pull some quick and simple data, it shows their YouTube channel had a sharp growth to over 50 000 new subscribers after the short film was released and continues to grow. Their total view count for the channel is 75 million views, 32 million views of which came from the ‘We Believe’ film alone. However, I do not believe this controversy impacted them financially. As CNBC reports on October this year, “P&G’s shaving segment this past quarter grew sales by only 1% year over year” (CNBC 2019). As they were trying to deliver a positive message using their global reach, this form of controversy in marketing would quell any questions surround ethics.

There are some points with regards to a company’s ability to overcome any backlash which it may receive from controversial marketing. It does offer the questions around brands levels of ignorance and the deception behind this ignorance? Which leads to the professional and ethical nature of using another type of controversial content marketing.

Ethical marketing’ is the application of ethics to the promotional process. Ethical marketing means approaching your consumer-facing communications from a moral standpoint, committing to transparency, trust, and truth.” (Dan Hughes, Digital Marketing Institute, 2019).

The contrived notions of controversy in content marketing give off the impression that processes are in place long before the campaigns are made public, to deal with the possible criticisms that can be highlighted. I believe that it portrays a public image, that brands are being proactive in addressing the situation if there happens to be a negative reaction. An example of this would be the Vice President of Global Communications at Proctor & Gamble responding in a Forbes article (Forbes 2019) to the Gillette We Believe ad. Or the controversy around H&M’s ‘coolest monkey in the jungle’ product line on their website by which the ‘industry standard apology’ followed with an appointment of a ‘Global Leader for Diversity and Inclusiveness’ (H&M Group 2019). Because of the actions taken in reaction to the negativity surrounding certain brands for their controversial content, there seems to be an acceptance to continually leverage this style of marketing regardless of consequence. However, there has to be no question that such premeditated marketing strategies are unethical because of the offence they cause, and especially when ethics are a subject of morality.

I am sure it could be argued that ‘genuine mistakes are made’ which are the cause of the controversy. Furthermore, another question I would like to address would be “is it worth offending a demographic subset for the sake of increased profitability, which they can pass off as ignorance?”. I do not believe so, but some metrics and data seem to show otherwise. According to Google Trends ‘interest over time’ of H&M, shows that its peak interest is exactly the same time as when the controversial product line was released and causing a negative reaction, in turn driving traffic and engagements and possibly leading to sales (Google Trends data 2019).

Inditex brand Zara has a timeline of controversial product marketing over the years (which is also forms part of content marketing and strategies) that they have had to continually offer apologises (Fortune 2018). As the headline in the Financial Times indicates “Zara owner Inditex profits from expansion with record sales”, once again an example of brand awareness achieved with little to no impact financially to the brand.

In terms of small businesses (SME’s), when venturing into using controversy in their content marketing, it is advisable that they take a more calculated approach as many of the guides available point out (Andrea Lehr 2017). Superdrug’s “Perceptions of Perfection” article on their blog could be deemed ‘mildly controversial’. The article received widespread engagement and a positive reception but did this by not delving into a topic that strongly pushes the emotional triggers.

The risks to a small business are that if they ‘get it wrong’ the consequences are too detrimental. In a study conducted by Chen and Berger, they state that “There’s virtually no scenario in which they stand to gain by stirring up highly charged emotions and there’s a big downside to crossing the line” (Zoey Chen; Jonah Berger 2014). And recovering from crossing the line could potentially be a huge expense with escalating online reputation management and SEO costs and / or having to rebrand.

A marketer’s professionalism and responsibility in using controversy as a tool in their content strategy can be dependent on whether their own views and beliefs reflect the values of the brand. There are many instances on social media where before an individual publishes any form of opinionated content, they state these are their own views and do not reflect said company. However, I do not believe SME’s should stay clear of controversy in their content as having opinions, beliefs, stances do humanise companies. An increasing number of brands that understand content marketing is not always about the hard sell. And with this understand they may struggle to connect with potential customers. A controversial topic can potentially offer a solution in that regard. I am in agreeance that certain controversial conversations need to happen and commend brands such as Nike and Gillette who have deemed it their responsibility to ‘have the conversation’. Others can be inspired but should air on the side of caution if they are trying to emulate larger brands in using controversial conversations with their audience and the wider public.