Comms hits and hiccups #3

Mid September has been marked by controversies – with Sydney Sweeny, Ed Sheeran, AI bosses and King Charles all feeling the heat. As ever, there are things marketers and brands can learn from how these were handled, so here’s my take on the winners and losers of the moment.

Sweeny

Not for the first time, Sydney Sweeney broke the internet. This time it was by taking off all her clothes, posing alongside some strategically positioned sports gear and saying the word sport a lot. I don’t care for the advert (I didn’t really get it and shan’t share a link) and I think it’s lazy marketing – I have visions of some men sitting around a table, gleefully agreeing that sex sells, cleverly asking themselves who’s hot at the moment and calling Sweeney’s agent pronto. Obviously it ‘backfired’ – it objectifies and trivialises women, especially those actually in the world of sport who have put literal blood, sweat and tears into reaching the top of their game. If I were American, I wouldn’t give any of my hard-earned money to Novig.

But, and this is a big but, I was never going to. I’m not target market. I would wager that the people Novig wanted to reach enjoyed a bit of Sweeny sans-clothing. It got basically everyone talking so brand awareness is off the scale. On a professional level, I reluctantly and lightly commend Sweeney’s response – pictures of women in sports posing much like she had done. It was catty but very her. This woman doesn’t avoid controversy, she charges at it full pelt and throws punches when she gets there. I don’t understand or like her but then I’m not the sort of person she cares about either.

I want to say this was a comms failure as I loathe pretty much everything about the campaign, but if the goal was to get attention, it hit the mark. Here’s where it gets really interesting though: while my social feeds were full of condemnation, Peak Metrics found roughly 30% of comments were positive, 17% negative and the remainder largely neutral. The app moved from 50^th into the top 20 sports downloads. Novig itself reported a record weekly volume increase of 30%, exceeding $1.1billion cumulatively.

It was offensive and effective in equal measure – an accomplishment very hard to achieve. I hope it doesn’t herald the start of an ‘anti-purpose’ marketing era as this approach will not, thankfully, work for most.

Spencer

Moving on from Miss Sweeney, King Charles shocked the world when he broke the decades-old Windsor family code, “never complain, never explain”, commenting on Earl Spencer’s book. Many are saying that, by doing so, he gave the accusations oxygen, further fanning the flames, but I’m going to go out on a limb here and argue he did the right thing. The accusations were toxic – and about the mother of his children. Had he not spoken out, he ran the risk of critics filling the void. The claims – that the King was giddy with excitement upon learning of the death of his former wife – were extraordinary and warranted an out-of-the-ordinary rebuttal.

There is something special about the rare statements that come from the palace in the wake of such events – certainly the “recollections may vary” line will never be forgotten. This one was similar – brilliantly undermining the errant earl without demonstrably criticising him. In fact, it was a work of art: “His majesty is mindful that the pain of fraternal grief can cloud reason, affect judgement and colour memory in ways others do not recognise, even many years after such a loss.” In other words, don’t believe a word of it.

It will be interesting to see any shifts in YouGov’s favourability tracking. It seems hard to believe the King will emerge from this unscathed but I believe the statement will have helped to limit the damage to some extent. Anecdotally, pouring through comments on media articles, listening to radio phone ins and reviewing social media posts, more people than not seem reluctant to believe Charles was “giddy with excitement” and suspect the thrice-divorced Spencer might be in it for the money. There are plenty who do believe the brother though.

Either way, I think this was a masterclass in media statements. Brands are tempted to follow a certain formula when tackling crises of their own, strongly refuting the allegations, saying they are categorically false, taking obligations seriously, remaining committed to transparency etc. The problem is that these words have been used so often, they have lost meaning. Sometimes a more creative take can have a greater impact, and I would look to the House of Windsor for inspiration.

Sheeran

Also under the cosh this week was music’s Mr nice guy, Ed Sheeran. I’m not here to comment on the events that led to the media fallout, simply on the way it was handled. I listened to one PR expert on Radio Five Live who was adamant it was nothing short of a complete disaster and that Ed was likely to be cancelled.

I’m not sure I agree. I think where he went wrong was speed of response. By the time his explanation came out, the narrative had already been shaped and once framing takes hold, it’s tricky to reverse.

The statement itself wasn’t all bad. He clarified his role, “It was the promoter’s decision, not mine” and emphasised the stakeholders – the fans who had paid good money to see him and the crew members, musicians and workers whose livelihoods depend on the show. By explaining how hard he had worked to build bridges between the artist and the venue, he came across as a mediator, not an instigator, and this will go some way to rebuilding the trust of fans. The statement was long though, feeding further headlines and risking fans not reading to the end, where the most personal message lay.

It’s not been good for Ed – he’s apparently lost 200,000 Instagram followers and resale ticket prices for his remaining shows have dropped. However, he has reputational equity in the bank, so I think he’ll survive this.

The lesson for brands: when you see something bad on the horizon, get on the front foot. Ed was in a no-win situation with this one but had he put the announcement out first, he’d have had better control over the narrative.

And finally

It’s been a bad few weeks for AI’s reputation. Its own creators said there was a 10% chance of it killing us all before the next decade is out.  Fear not though, Donald Trump says that is “a HOAX”. Even the leaders of companies such as Anthropic, OpenAI, and xAI are calling for more safeguards, but Trump is having none of it. “The only control or guardrails that AI needs is a STRONG AND SMART (high IQ!) PRESIDENT.”

Fingers crossed we’ll get one soon.

The author: Jane Ainsworth is managing director of WPR. She has over 25 years’ experience developing and delivering communications strategies for consumer brands including Dunelm, Tesco, Mothercare, Greene King, John Lewis, Bullring, Beaverbrooks and Westfield.