How not to follow YesMadam and other brands racing for the low-hanging fruit

In the race to break the internet, brands seem to have forgotten the golden rule of trust: once broken, it’s nearly impossible to mend. In recent years, a disturbing trend of manipulative marketing gimmicks has emerged—turning fear, stress, and even fake tragedies into "clever" campaigns. The result? A growing scepticism that risks desensitising audiences to genuine, grave issues.

Take YesMadam, for instance. The home salon services brand recently sparked outrage after a LinkedIn post alleged it had fired over 100 employees who reported workplace stress in a survey. The outrage was palpable—until it was revealed to be a campaign to spotlight workplace stress. Ironically, this awareness stunt only left audiences stressed, angry, and deeply sceptical. The brand may have introduced a ‘de-stress leave policy’, but it’s hard to relax when you’ve just made a mockery of genuine workplace issues.

Just last month, Zomato CEO Deepinder Goyal posted a job opening where candidates were asked to cough up ₹20 lakh for a Chief of Staff role—a ‘filter’, apparently, to ensure only the most serious applicants applied. Spoiler alert: that stunt didn’t land well either.

And who could forget Poonam Pandey’s faux funeral earlier this year? The model-actor ‘died’ to raise awareness about cervical cancer, only to resurrect two days later, claiming it was all in the name of advocacy. 

Remember when Nora Fatehi duped us into believing that her face had been deepfaked for an ad without her consent? That, too, was a ‘campaign’. HDFC Bank’s attempt to raise awareness about online fraud. 

In the wake of these past controversies, the recent YesMadam campaign serves as a stark reminder of the risks associated with shock marketing. Despite its intention to raise awareness about workplace stress, the backlash was swift and unforgiving, leaving both the brand and its audience questioning its sincerity.

Reflecting on the recent campaign that has sent shockwaves, Brand consultant and ex-brand head - Dunzo, Sai Ganesh, said, “This is clearly a faux pas on the brand’s side. They didn’t anticipate the reaction, and frankly, there was no need for this. People are quick to call you out on such things, especially in today’s day and age. I feel it’s a horrendous mistake, highly insensitive and lacking awareness.”

Similarly, Nisha Sampath, Managing Partner, Bright Angles Consulting LLP, said, “It’s a very poor attempt at grabbing attention and projects the company as desperate, inauthentic and poor in their marketing acumen.”

Furthermore, Lloyd Mathias, Marketing Expert and Independent Director, said that the campaign was in poor taste, pointing out how means don’t justify the end. 

He said, “Fundamentally, it's a campaign gone completely wrong. If it is just about attracting attention, then this is a terrible way to do it. It will give the brand more negative responses than anything else. People are going to remember this for the wrong reasons. Current users of the service might think twice about an organisation that used such a terrible way to get attention. Claiming to fire employees and then saying it was just a campaign gimmick is in very poor taste and is not right. Whether it's a marketing or PR stunt, tactics like this are simply not acceptable. It won't go down well with people across the age spectrum.”

To be fair, it wasn’t just YesMadam that has resorted to extreme PR stunts to get attention. However, it refused to learn from the examples before that panned terribly, receiving significant backlash from the audience and business loss for agencies. 

Is all publicity truly good? 

Experts share that these gimmicks are often born from the pressures of garnering attention. However, they argue that such short-sighted approaches can do more harm than good.

According to Sampath, these campaigns stem from “marketing myopia”—the belief that short-term fame equates to brand building. She said, “People think only desperate, weird or extreme things grab attention. But I also suspect that ‘brand immature’ thinkers at the helm compound this problem. Anyone with experience in brand thinking within the organisation would never advocate such campaigns.”

Mathias shared this view, adding that these tactics reflect a desperation to gain attention at any cost. He stated, “The belief that 'any publicity is good publicity' drives these actions. However, this is a short-sighted approach. A brand needs to build awareness and regard in a positive manner, not through alienating or shocking people.”

These tactics, part of the attention economy we currently live in, reflect a misguided focus on short-term gains at the expense of long-term brand integrity. While attention is important, if iconic brands are any proof, success has always been a result of building genuine connections and fostering trust. 

The wolf

Now, when every brand and influencer is vying for a few fleeting seconds of audience’s attention, the line between marketing ingenuity and outright manipulation has blurred beyond recognition. The result? A growing trust deficit so vast that when a real tragedy unfolds, audiences may simply shrug, dismissing it as yet another ploy for likes, shares, and headlines.

Karthik Srinivasan, Communications strategy consultant, said, “Sure, a lot more people would be aware about YesMadam’s existence, but why presume that all those who know of YesMadam today would also trust the brand to deliver their services adequately or appropriately? Visibility is not equal to consideration. Also, more importantly, consider the route in which all those people are now aware of the brand’s existence: that brand that lied that it fired over 100 people as part of a fake marketing stunt.”

This reminds me of the fable ‘the boy who cried wolf’. His presence was always equated with the wolf. In this case, as Srinivasan points out, YesMadam’s tactics were perhaps a strong introduction to the audience it intended to win. 

After all, brands are nothing without consumer trust. 

“Brands, in the interest of attracting new users, are not thinking about how gimmicks can erode the trust of their existing users. They affect the employer brand and investor brand even more than the customer-facing brand,” said Sampath. 

Sai Ganesh highlighted the need for thoughtful marketing, noting that today’s digital platforms offer ample opportunities for engaging, insights-based campaigns. “Simply chasing engagement doesn’t work in the long or short term,” he said, “Choosing low-hanging fruit like controversial campaigns only harms the brand’s top-of-the-funnel imagery.”

Srinivasan added, “It’s the lowest-hanging fruit, and there is a very good reason why so many other companies and agencies do not touch this fruit despite it being such a low-hanging one. All those other companies and agencies consciously choose NOT to lie to garner attention like the boy who cried wolf. It’s always a choice. And such choices form perceptions. Perceptions have consequences.”

In the quest for attention, the line between clever marketing and manipulation has become dangerously thin, leading to a trust deficit that could have lasting consequences.

Too little, too late? 

At times, the mounting pressure of the industry we work in becomes too heavy for the shoulders. In the race to win consumer attention, even the greatest leaders lose foresight. While gimmicks never come from a good place, marketing is always a risk. In the past, we have seen iconic brands crossing the line; however, they have always owned up for their mistakes – which requires more than just issuing a carefully worded statement. The fragile brand image is built with years of patience, sincerity, accountability, and a commitment to doing better.

Following the backlash from the Poonam Pandey campaign, digital marketing agency Schbang admitted its involvement and issued an apology. In their statement, they acknowledged their role and apologised to those triggered by the campaign. They added, “This is the first time in the history of this country that the word ‘Cervical Cancer’ has been on 1000+ Headlines,” indicating that the campaign achieved significant search interest despite its missteps.

However, Mathias criticised such statements for mixing apology with justification, calling it insincere. “An apology that says, ‘We got what we desired in terms of analytics,’ is not a sincere apology,” he noted. He emphasised that the best approach for brands is to issue an unconditional apology. 

He added, “Brands should promise not to repeat the mistake and take constructive actions to demonstrate their intent. Attempts at virtue signalling, like YesMadam’s promise of de-stress leave after their controversial campaign, come across as hollow.”

Similarly, Sai Ganesh pointed out the importance of authenticity in public apologies. He explained that consumers see through half-hearted apologies, especially those that shift focus to metrics or try to justify harmful actions.

He said, “Owning up to a mistake and accepting it shows a stronger value system is what people are looking for. People make mistakes and they move forward. But it's a juvenile response to say that, ‘hey, we got spiking responses and odd search results’.”

According to him, such lip service does little to rebuild trust and only exacerbates the damage.

In the pursuit of virality, brands must remember that trust, once broken, is hard to regain. Shock marketing may grab headlines, but it often leaves audiences disillusioned, eroding the very trust essential for brand longevity. 

Experts stress that short-term attention through manipulative tactics is a flawed strategy that damages customer loyalty, employee morale, and brand reputation. Authenticity and accountability should guide marketing efforts, fostering genuine connections rather than fleeting engagement. 

As the fallout from stunts like YesMadam's, it is evident that breaking trust to ‘break the internet’ isn’t just unsustainable but a costly mistake that brands cannot afford.