We’ve previously discussed the potential of controversial marketing. Campaigns that break the mold, evoke powerful emotions, and spark widespread interaction can yield extraordinary returns on investment. However, advertising, like most things in life, requires balance. When does something provocative cross the line into scandal? When does gender-specific marketing become sexist? How many Monday bathroom breaks, after already taking five, officially constitute a sick day?

Regardless of the platform, these are crucial questions (especially the first two) that marketers must consider before launching a campaign that challenges conventions or pushes boundaries. Fortunately, recent history provides countless examples of advertisers who abandoned common sense along with cookie-cutter approaches. Conversely, many campaigns have successfully navigated this line, achieving remarkable success.

The question remains: Where exactly is the line? In our analysis of controversial ads, we identified two lines, creating three distinct categories. We selected the most compelling examples from each category, and here’s what we found:

The Good

As a team of optimistic marketers here at nexus-security, let’s begin by acknowledging a somewhat controversial campaign that recently achieved impressive results.

1. Carl’s Jr.’s “Au Naturel” ft. Charlotte McKinney (2015)

Former CEO Andy Puzder believed that provocative burger ads saved Carl’s Jr. from obsoletion.“If no one’s upset,” he told Entrepreneur, “I approach the marketing team and ask, ‘What’s wrong with our ads?’ Complaints aren’t always detrimental. Ultimately, we focus on…sales. And our sales increase.” Football fans may recall this one from Super Bowl XLIX. The suggestive glances. The dramatic lighting. The man shaving ice who, upon seeing Charlotte McKinney walk by nude, becomes increasingly distracted and vigorous in his shaving.

However, you might have noticed something else about the Ice Shaving Guy (ISG). He’s wearing a sweater. In fact, all the male onlookers in the ad are wearing inexplicably warm clothing (despite it seemingly being a hot day). They are also depicted in various states of cooling down—apart from ISG, there’s the man in flannel handling a hose…

and the man struggling with an excessive amount of bread (another cooling agent, if you think about it)…

This leads us to the first reason this ad is effective: 1. It boasts impressive aesthetics The ad effectively grabs attention by creating contrast. For Carl’s Jr., contrast means juxtaposing a pristine Charlotte McKinney with a group of rugged, overdressed men who are clearly attracted to her. It’s hard to watch the ad and not feel that the goal is to objectify Charlotte McKinney, or at least that her objectification is a byproduct of the intended message. To be clear, we are not endorsing this approach. When used deliberately as a technique, this kind of objectification is ethically questionable at best and reprehensible at worst. However, in terms of effectiveness, it works because it… 2. Understands its target audience “We successfully captured the attention of our target demographic, young hungry guys, as recommended by our marketing and research team.” – Andy Puzder You can polarize people, even offend them, as long as your target audience associates the desired feeling with your product. The rest becomes a balancing act of avoiding censorship while maximizing that feeling. Viewers who disapprove of your tactics but fall within your target demographic (like this writer, in the case of Carl’s Jr.) are unlikely to hold it against your brand or product. Meanwhile, viewers who are more susceptible to such messaging—and perhaps less self-aware—might now experience a primal urge for a Carl’s Third-Pound Thickburger. And what about the Twitter buzz, the rhetorical analyses, the opinion pieces reacting to the controversy?

These are all forms of (free) publicity, creating a spectacle of attention. These viewers were unlikely to become major consumers of your product anyway. Now, they’re inadvertently helping you sell it. 3. Conveys a clear and concise message This ad could have potentially avoided controversy by simply omitting its slogan. This Young Hungry Guy was so captivated by the aesthetics (well played, Carl’s) that the message didn’t register until later. If you’re unfamiliar with Charlotte McKinney, she’s a model whose physique could easily be mistaken for digitally enhanced if not for her fame as a model whose physique has not been digitally enhanced. The ad’s slogan? “The All-Natural Burger.” Bravo.

The Bad

Nationwide’s “Boy” (2015)

I couldn’t even enjoy the Super Bowl without interruption, thanks to Nationwide trying to sell me insurance Dubbed “Dead Boy” by the unforgiving Twittersphere, this Super Bowl ad sparked less shock and outrage than sadness and resentment. Of course, among the 114.4 million viewers, some found the sadness infuriating:

The moment I see a child in these commercials, I assume they’re going to die. Thanks, Nationwide! #SuperBowl

— Patton Oswalt (@pattonoswalt) February 2, 2015 “Boy” features what we could call a tragic twist ending; imagine The Sixth Sense, but without the cleverness. The titular Boy, with messy hair and wide, innocent eyes, spends the first 30 seconds of the ad doing all the things he supposedly “never will”—riding a bike, getting cooties, flying—because, spoiler alert (0:28), he’s dead. As for why this ad fails, well—that pretty much sums it up. But let’s analyze it further. 1. Ineffective storytelling A similar trope to the “ghost ending”—surprise, the character was dead all along—is the dream ending. Remember how annoyed you felt the last time you saw one of those? (Yes, Alice in Wonderland, we’re looking at you). In the most recent Alice film (2010, starring Mia Wasikowska), the writers made some adjustments—Alice wakes from her dream having undergone a personal ever more confident and resolute person. As an audience, we appreciate character arcs—growth, transformation, insights, redemption. However, abruptly waking a character from a dream in the final or penultimate chapter/scene of a story can be incredibly jarring for the audience. “Wait, so it was all a dream? What was the point of everything that just happened?” This is essentially the problem with Dead Boy’s sudden demise—it feels unearned, and therefore, so does our sympathy. Instead, we’re left with a metaphorical punch to the gut—provocation for its own sake, a wasteful misuse of valuable ad space. 2. Fear-mongering If you’re going to appeal to an emotion, avoid exploiting it; and if you must exploit an emotion, avoid fear—if not for ethical reasons, then because it’s easily detectable and off-putting (normally). Seriously, people are constantly on guard against fear. Think about that friend who refused to watch Get Out, despite the positive reviews, because it was partly a horror film. What purpose does fear serve here? To sell insurance? Really, Nationwide? 3. Inappropriate for the ad space We’ve seen worse examples of this…

However, this isn’t the Display Network, where placement is determined by keywords and algorithms. This is the Super Bowl. You know exactly who’s watching, their desired mood and the general tone of the surrounding ads. You know that your audience might have just finished watching a baby project itself out of its mother’s womb for a bag of Doritos. Targeting viewers who are already anxious about their children suffering a fatal fall from a two-story window (see above meme: curtains billowing ominously from the open window) is simply not a wise strategy, even if executed well. *Bonus incompetence: Public statements matter If you’re not retracting and pulling the ad, if you’re not expressing public remorse, definitely avoid portraying yourselves as unfairly criticized do-gooders:

Matthew Jauchius left Nationwide a little over two months after making that statement, ending his nine-year tenure with the company. His downfall offers a valuable lesson: Claiming the moral high ground after offending millions comes across as condescending—or worse, insincere. Approaching a public statement should be like seeking reconciliation with a significant other; your relationship with your audience is just as fragile. Simply put, there’s no winning in this scenario. Accept the loss, apologize and move on. You’ve already invested an average of $160,000 per second on Dead Boy’s brief existence. “We did it for the children!”

Nationwide, taking responsibility

The Ugly

Pepsi’s “Live for Now Moments Anthem” ft. Kendall Jenner

We’re going to go all out on this one. But we’re going to try to be somewhat subtle. Imagine this: For over a century, a brand freely sold products linked to heart disease, obesity, and other health issues, and they were successful. Then one day, that same brand tries to rebrand itself as the solution to the biggest social injustice of those 100+ years of unchecked success. Could anything be more audacious? Did that actually happen? Surely nothing could be worse than profiting from heart disease? The audacity is real! We were ready to give Pepsi a pass until the offspring of the “famous for being famous” family reached out a well-manicured hand and seemingly solved the Black Lives Matter movement with a can of soda. But let’s not resort to cheap criticism. Here are 3 reasons why this ad failed: 1. Brand egotism Who else but Pepsi could tackle social inequality? Seemingly a response to Coca-Cola’s iconic 1971 “I’d Like to Buy the World a Coke” (created by Don Draper, we’re onto you), the Jenner ad also exemplifies brand insecurity—“Coke took a shot at something profound, why can’t we?” The thing is, singing Kumbaya on a hilltop doesn’t compare to the social activism Pepsi attempts to portray. Maybe if the singing was directed at a group of Vietnam War protesters and successfully calmed the situation, Pepsi would have had a valid comparison. 2. Tone-deafness Even an ad with a nuanced understanding of contemporary social movements can come across as insincere (and probably is). So, if you’re going to appropriate these movements, you better get the tone right. The protesters in this ad, even before Jenner’s intervention, are smiling and dancing. You know, typical behavior at Black Lives Matter rallies/protests. Seriously, if that’s your vision for the ad, and if we’re talking about capitalizing on movements: couldn’t they have chosen a more joyful, less sensitive one? It’s as if Pepsi simply picked a relevant topic (not always a bad strategy, but clearly a misstep here).

A man attempts to quell a riot with a Pepsi. 3. Lack of external feedback Since the ad’s release, it has been revealed that all of the members of the creating body were white. Assembling a team of yes-men is never conducive to creativity, especially when there’s concern about alienating or offending a portion of your audience. Seek second, third, and fourth opinions, and make sure they come from a diverse group of creative minds. Otherwise…

ROI vs. production cost