Rage Bait: The Art of Manipulating Emotion in Marketing
There’s no doubt that rage-baiting has risen in recent years, seen anywhere from politics and news outlets to, most notoriously, marketing campaigns and social media content. Whether intentional or not, rage bait and clickbait provoke conversation and brand visibility. And in an era saturated with constant online information and visual content, it takes something radical to cut through the noise.
So, what is the psychology behind rage bait marketing, and why do we engage with it? How are content creators taking clickbait to extreme levels? And what happens when brands unintentionally ruffle feathers with controversial advertising campaigns?
The Psychology Behind Rage-Baiting
Rage-baiting, a marketing tactic commonly used by content creators on social platforms, relies on inflammatory topics and content to provoke anger and intense emotional responses. This might be anything from AI-augmented videos or disgusting food recipes to more sinister rage bait, such as offensive remarks about race and gender.
Many of us know it’s intentionally inflammatory, but why do we still feel the urge to engage? Unlike typical content, which relies on eye-catching visuals or a creative hook, rage bait relies on outrage for interaction. As these types of emotions are harder to stifle, turning a blind eye is trickier for online users, who feel more compelled to share their own opinion on the topic. Often, this tactic can be financially lucrative for content creators and marketers, as we explore below.
Clickbait: The Rise of Using Outrage for Engagement
Contemporary content creators face the issue of desensitised doomscrollers and overexposed online users, making it hard for them to make their mark. The solution? Using clickbait to rile up online communities for monetary gain. Why? Because more engagement equals more impressions, even if it’s negative.
After organising extreme pornographic stunts and sharing highly controversial gender role takes, it’s fair to say Bonnie Blue has become somewhat of a clickbait connoisseur. Ruffling feathers is the name of her game, and her polarising marketing tactics have earned her a huge following on adult-only content platforms and a supposed six-figure salary. Whether people love or hate her, she’s undeniably talented at sparking conversation and provoking online communities for profit.
On the other end of the spectrum, Nara Smith has been accused of tapping into a ‘tradwife’ niche, posting content that depicts an unrealistically perfect family life. Clad in manicured outfits while cooking complex meals from scratch, users question the authenticity of the public figure. As per the floods of critical users, Smith is accused of setting unattainable standards and potentially harmful messaging, questioning whether she has constructed an online character as a satirical ruse. Scepticism also clouds Winter Zesu’s comment section, with users slating the content creator for bratty behaviour and disastrous dining etiquette. Unlike Smith, however, Zesu has openly acknowledged that the character is a sketch created to cause uproar across socials.
What can we take away from these examples? While rage-baiting may not be the most ethical means of increasing online visibility, it certainly achieves quicker results over traditional methods for modern-day content creators.
Missing The Mark: Unintentional Rage Baiting in Advertising
For the most part, reputable brands steer clear of rage bait unless it fits a certain tone. However, when poor foresight meets misaligned brand values in advertising, we’re left with accidental rage bait. While this can be a fast-track ticket to visibility, it can also be to the detriment of a brand’s reputation and lead to campaigns being pulled due to global backlash.
American Eagle’s latest denim campaign faced considerable controversy this summer, with many pointing out tone-deaf styling and sinister undertones. Paired with the brand ambassador’s blue eyes and blonde hair, the slogan, “Sydney Sweeney has good genes,” was met with severe backlash and seen as a nod to eugenics. Intended as a cheeky pun, the brand ended up unintentionally rage-baiting the young audiences they were trying to resonate with. While this sudden visibility skyrocketed the stock, this success was short-lived, and the store has now seen fewer store visits compared to last year. It wasn’t long before the brand backtracked by changing ‘genes’ to ‘jeans’.
Another disastrous example of unintentional rage-baiting made headlines when e.l.f. chose comedian Matt Rife as the face of its campaign alongside the drag artist, Heidi N’ Closet. The parody-legal ad was quickly cancelled when an old joke by Rife, trivialising domestic abuse, was unearthed. Critics scorned the brand for its ambassador choice and threatened to boycott. The advert missed the mark so direly that observers accused the brand of planned rage bait to garner attention. Either way, the mishap is a cautionary tale of improper planning, audience alignment and marketing judgment.
Whether planned or not, using outrage as a marketing tactic leverages controversy and outrage to boost engagement for content creators and brands. While rage-baiting can create rapid visibility, it’s a risky strategy that can damage long-term credibility and trust.
