For most of my 14+ years in brand strategy, I’ve watched outrage play out from a safe distance. Outrage was something politicians trafficked in, not marketers. Our job was to build relevance, distinction, and cultural resonance – not chaos.
If you asked me a few years ago whether a logo refresh or a holiday cup design could ignite political warfare, I would have laughed. Outrage marketing existed, sure, but it was fringe. It was reserved for cause-related campaigns, bold challenger brands, or actual provocation marketing tactics.
Now, the game has changed.
Outrage is for everyone.
The last few years have ushered in a new climate that I am calling “the accidental outrage era” – a time when even the most neutral, operational, and uncontroversial brand decisions can become ammunition in the culture wars, regardless of a brand’s intent. Traditional marketing is now evaluated under a political lens, and it’s reshaping how brands communicate, plan, and protect themselves.
This era isn’t defined by brands wanting to provoke. It’s defined by brands stepping on cultural landmines they never planted. Let’s talk about what’s shifted.
But first, a few case studies …
Cracker Barrel’s logo refresh became political theatre
When Cracker Barrel updated its logo, removing the “Old Timer” character in an effort to modernize the brand, there was no intention to provoke. It was a normal modernization, the kind every legacy brand eventually goes through.
Within hours, online commentators framed it as “erasing tradition.”
Conservative media personalities joined in.
Political figures weighed in.
The brand became a cultural and political talking point overnight.
The outrage had almost nothing to do with logo design. It had everything to do with the current cultural and political mood. Nostalgia anxiety, generational fear, and a polarized ecosystem hungry for symbols to fight over fueled the outrage.
Cracker Barrel eventually backed down, reversing aspects of its redesign. Not because the work was wrong, but because the political heat became unmanageable.
Starbucks holiday cups make America see red
Starbucks didn’t intend to declare a war on Christmas.
They just simplified the design of a seasonal cup.
But in 2015, that simplicity was interpreted by some as cultural or religious erasure. The outrage wasn’t about cups. It was about what people projected onto the cups: fears of secularization, anti-Christian political correctness, and cultural norms getting too progressive.
Starbucks didn’t back down creatively, but they did learn a lesson: in a polarized environment, even color choices signal values whether you intend them to or not.
Bud Light x Dylan Mulvaney partnership turned boycott
Bud Light’s influencer collaboration with Dylan Mulvaney wasn’t a political stance. It wasn’t even a national ad campaign. It was literally a single piece of social content. But outrage voiced usurped the moment and reframed it as a symbol of corporate wokeness, escalating it into a culture-war spectacle. Sales plummeted, the brand lost its #1 position in U.S. beer, and Bud Light’s attempt to distance itself angered both sides politically.
The controversy was not intentional. The response, however, amplified the damage, showing the cost of straddling a cultural line rather than choosing a side.
This example reveals something important: outrage today is audience-driven, not brand-triggered. Brands are no longer in control of how their audience assigns meaning to their actions.
Why does everything feel political now?
Social platforms reward high-arousal emotions.
Studies show that moral outrage, indignation, and anger spread faster than joy or sadness. Algorithms know this and push outrage further. The more divisive something appears, the further it travels. Even neutral content becomes combustible if it can be framed as morally charged.
The “outrage industrial complex” needs new villains daily.
Political pundits, influencers, and niche media depend on fresh material to fuel engagement and identity-building. Brands, especially national ones, become easy targets.
A logo?
A cup?
A partnership?
Perfect fodder. The outrage doesn’t require substance; it only needs symbolism.
Identity tension is at an all-time high.
Consumers are increasingly interpreting brand behavior through personal identity lenses: “Are you for me or against me?” “Are you on my side culturally?” This means brands inadvertently become political statements, even when they’re simply making design or marketing decisions.
The economics of accidental outrage
Outrage is not free. Nor is silence. Short-term outcomes may include: massive spikes in impressions and earned media, search volume and conversation surge, polarizing sentiment that may energize some audiences but alienate others
And then there are the long-term risks: declining sales, weakening loyalty, strained distribution partnerships, increased scrutiny of every future move, and the erosion of brand equity.
How can brands navigate the accidental outrage era?
Assume everything will be interpreted politically.
This isn’t about being fearful; it’s about being realistic. Before launching:
- What unintended cultural meanings could this signal?
- Who might take issue and reframe this?
- Could this be weaponized?
Not because you’re doing anything wrong, but because the environment is volatile.
Build a backlash-readiness plan.
Brands need a crisis plan before a crisis hits.
- Prepare statements
- Train teams on social response
- Decide who you will (and won’t) appease
You don’t need to expect outrage, but you do need to be ready for it.
Be consistent and values-aligned.
The fastest way to inflame both sides is to wobble. Bud Light’s mistake wasn’t the partnership – it was the retreat. Consumers can smell fear. They forgive conviction, but they punish confusion.
Test for symbolic meaning, not just the traditional metrics.
Most pretesting still evaluates comprehension or likability. In some cases, you may need a new layer that helps us understand: symbolism, cultural baggage, and political interpretations.
What looks neutral to you may look like a value statement to someone else.
Don’t chase safe. Chase clarity.
Trying to be apolitical is now political. Trying to be neutral signals a stance. Trying to offend no one almost guarantees someone will feel erased. Better to be clear in your approach, consistent in your actions, and intentional in the values you live.
So, where do we go from here?
We are not in an era where brands choose outrage. We are in an era where outrage chooses brands.
The brands that will survive and thrive aren’t the ones that avoid risk at all costs. They’re the ones who recognize that culture evolves quickly, neutrality is disappearing, symbols matter, everything you do communicates something, and audiences project more meaning than ever onto what brands do.
The accidental outrage era isn’t a call for brands to tiptoe. It’s a call to be braver, clearer, and more strategic.
