Brands can use scandal to their advantage—but it can easily go awry

In 2019, influencer Olivia Jade Giannulli found herself at the center of a now-infamous college admissions scandal. Her parents, Full House actress Lori Loughlin and fashion designer Mossimo Giannulli, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit fraud in the federal case now known as Operation Varsity Blues that revealed a widespread ring of cheating, fraud, and bribery involved in gaining admission to some of the country’s most elite colleges.

When the scandal broke, public opinion and the court of law quickly turned against Olivia Jade, whose admission to the University of Southern California had been bolstered by a fake recruitment to the school’s rowing team, and her family. The popular YouTuber soon unenrolled from the university and took a social media hiatus.

Fast-forward to 2026, and Olivia Jade is back—and the star of Reformation’s fall campaign, called “Good Sport,” which prominently features a crewneck sweatshirt emblazoned with the word “College” and has copy including “We brought her back to campus for a lesson in dressing for sport.”

It’s an unsubtle reference to the scandal that rocked the academic world, and judging from comments on Reformation’s Instagram post introducing the campaign, it has audiences split, with some labeling it iconic, and others decrying it as insensitive.

Time and time again, brands tap into scandal in campaigns to drum up attention and conversation—but not all views are equal, according to Derek Rucker, professor of entrepreneurial studies in marketing at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management.

“People will sometimes ask, ‘But isn’t any publicity good publicity?’” Rucker said. “The answer to that is definitively no.”

Good thing I like my brands canceled

When brands come into the spotlight with controversial campaigns, Rucker told us that they risk a loss in sales and audience, and can sometimes spend more money atoning for a misstep than they did on the campaign itself. So with all that on the table, why are controversial campaigns so common?

For some brands, alienating some audiences is worth it to connect with others. Nike’s 2018 campaign “Dream Crazy” starred former NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick, whose decision to kneel during the national anthem before games to protest police brutality made him a hotly debated figure, and Rucker pointed to Kaepernick’s involvement in the ad as a prime example of a brand wading into controversy strategically.

“I remember teaching class the next day [after the campaign debuted], students were like, ‘Oh, you think Nike [was] surprised? Like they messed up?’” Rucker said. “They’re not surprised. This is classic Nike. They’re betting that the audience that likes the brand and values those values is bigger than the audience that doesn’t, and so that’s where it becomes a strategy.”

Stoking scandal can also be a more tenable strategy for smaller businesses, according to Rucker, because there may be less risk of alienating a bigger audience.

Take sports prediction market Novig’s recent campaign starring a nearly nude Sydney Sweeney as an example: the campaign was heavily criticized for sexualizing women in sports, although it’s possible that its original audience of sports bettors may not have had the same reaction. Stephen Warren, a professor of communications at Northeastern University, recently told Northeastern Global News that the fired-up reaction did more advertising work than the ad itself.

Reformation’s recent campaign is a bit of a different case, considering the company’s recent IPO and its aim to appeal to a wide swath of fashion consumers across Millennials and Gen Z.

“Sometimes what happens is part of the creative process is you have to break through…If that’s the case, if that’s the real best option, that’s where we have a conversation of, like, ‘Okay, but could the controversy be costly?’” Rucker said. “It could be one of those ones where they thought the degree of controversy might not be significant enough to worry about it.”

Reformation did not follow up on a request to be interviewed for this story.

Sorry not sorry

There can be hallmarks of brand campaign elements and subsequent responses that signal whether the brand is aware of the controversy at stake. Two that Rucker pointed to are the inclusion of a charitable donation, and the decision not to apologize once negative reactions start rolling in.

Both Reformation’s recent fall campaign and last year’s widely discussed American Eagle denim campaign starring Sweeney, which drew ire for what some called its eugenics-coded language, directed proceeds from a specific product to a noble cause. Reformation’s “College” crewneck sends net proceeds to YES Scholars, a nonprofit supporting underprivileged students in Los Angeles, New York City, and rural Appalachian North Carolina; American Eagle’s “Sydney” jean directed a portion of the proceeds to the Crisis Text Line, an organization providing free and confidential mental health support and crisis intervention.

Rucker said he’s not sure including a charitable cause is a silver bullet to navigate controversy. “It wouldn’t surprise me that that doesn’t make a square, so to speak,” he said. “It maybe makes it a little harder to attack, but my view is, those brands, especially with things around Sydney Sweeney from what I’ve seen, these are done with intent. This is not unintended controversy.”

When brands do intentionally court controversy, Rucker said an apology or acknowledgement of any backlash may never come, and if it does, the tone may not be as serious. “They’re not going to apologize because they’re not actually sorry. They’re actually trying to target a particular consumer audience,” he said.

So far, Reformation has not issued an apology to address upset customers, while American Eagle’s denim campaign was “worth every single dollar,” CMO Craig Brommers previously told Marketing Brew.

Actually really sorry

Of course, not all brand controversy is intentional.

Converse recently found itself in hot water when audiences pointed out that an image from its latest global campaign—which depicted brand ambassador and Kpop star Karina wearing a white skirt partially illuminated by a triangle spotlight from the top of Converse’s star-shaped logo next to a pair of dangling sneakers—bore a resemblance to symbols of the Ku Klux Klan and lynching. The campaign also involved an additional image showing shoes hanging from a tree, which some said also invoked racist themes.

The brand quickly pulled the images and issued an apology via a statement to press, which a brand representative also emailed to Marketing Brew in response to a request for comment: “We’re sorry. We understand why this image is deeply upsetting and recognize that we got this wrong. We removed it from our channels and are working to remove it everywhere it appeared. This should not have happened and we will do better.”

Whether intentional or not, Rucker said there are certain topics that brands should always aim to steer clear of. If they find themselves in a situation like Converse’s, he said, an immediate apology and removal of the material is the way forward, “because even though that wasn’t your intent, how you handle consumers’ response to their read becomes very important.”

Stumbling into controversy can also signal to audiences a need to refine internal processes or test more thoroughly with audiences, Rucker said.

“Good brands have checks and balances,” he said. “When something goes wrong, what do you do? Explain to the consumer what happened. Take accountability and get rid of it as quickly as you can.”

Controversy, according to Rucker, is like a microscope. Whether the brand wants increased attention or not, it’s a dynamic to be dealt with carefully once the spotlight is on.

“That’s the thing to ask. Do you want to be part of it?” Rucker said. “One of the arguments has been, as categories mature, how do you and I differentiate? How do we stand out? I think controversy is one way to do that—and I’ll double down on one way.”

With that said, if Rucker were to start his own brand, “I wouldn’t go the way of controversy,” he said, “because I know there’s a lot of ways to succeed that don’t involve that.”