An era marked by constant digital noise requires brands and influencers to reach out more and more- literally, in some cases, by seeking shock value and shouting ever more loudly, over everyone. Enter Poonam Pandey, someone known for her bold moves, who recently hit news headlines for a marketing exercise that seemed to breach a limit on decency. That limit was breached in? A fake announcement of her death as a result of cervical cancer, followed by an apologetic video to focus attention on the disease. There was widespread outrage, but also curiosity, an exact formula for viral marketing. Or is shockvertising like that a smart strategy, or is it a dangerous game with severe consequences?
The stunt by Pandey was, essentially a marketing gimmick to get the public to stop in their tracks. The actor's post on Instagram, stating that she had died, soon sent ripples across social media with condolence messages and tributes pouring in. Just the next day, she uploaded another video, stating that the news was fake and stating that she wanted to make cervical cancer, which usually remains unnoticed, more noticeable. In her apology video, she said, “Yes, I faked my demise. Extreme, I know. But suddenly we all are talking about cervical cancer, aren’t we?”
Her intention? To raise awareness. The result? A flood of backlash and criticism. Some deemed it insensitive, even cruel.
In the world of marketing, shock tactics aren’t new. But in recent years, especially in the digital era, brands and influencers have been pushing these limits further. What began as bold campaigns, like Benetton’s thought-provoking ads or the viral stunts of brands like Zomato, has morphed into something more extreme, where the lines between reality and fiction blur. Zomato's new ad with Hrithik Roshan uses the controversial tactic of deepfakes and AI technology to personalize content based on the viewer's GPS location. The ad dynamically changes the dish, restaurant, and city based on where the viewer is watching, which makes it a very targeted experience. Although this innovative approach features local eateries and personalizes the ad to the viewer's desire, it has also been criticized because of issues with privacy and ethical use of AI. People are concerned that the technology is invasive and will play with their personal data. And while such stunts can bring short-term popularity, they often bring long-term consequences.
Additionally take, for example, YesMadam, an Indian beauty services company. In early 2024, a leaked email went viral, claiming the company had fired over 100 employees after they indicated they were stressed in a company survey. The message was inflammatory, sparking outrage online. Yet, the company later clarified that it was all part of a planned campaign to raise awareness about workplace stress. Yes, you have it right: the mass sackings were faked for "awareness" purposes. This step, like Pandey's stunt, was scandalous and many people would question the ethics of marketing in such a manner.
Not limited to entertainment figures and startups alone, the trend has increasingly gone with major brands that rely on shockvertising for marketing-whether through fake announcements, controversial social media posts, or misleading campaigns. It is a strategy often getting massive attention but surely coming with risks.
But why do companies go out on such risk-laden limbs? In such a scorching contest in Indian startups, fighting for limited customer attention, the tension to become noticed can be brutal. Here, especially startups grapple on an everyday war to surface. As established marketing methodologies lose their pull, many find themselves increasingly tempted into shockvertising--it may be the speedy route that gets people noticing them; does that all the time equate into success, though?
Let's take a step back and look at the ethics of it all. Faking a death announcement or crafting a fake crisis doesn't just play with public emotions; it also damages the trustworthiness of the brand. In a market where authenticity is valued, such an approach erodes the very foundation of customer loyalty. It's all for a good cause, right: raising awareness about cervical cancer or workplace stress? Behind the scenes, though, one thing is certain: credibility can be sacrificed for that viral moment. But what is the cost?
The real issue here is the long-term fallout. Shockvertising may make a lot of noise, but it often comes with a quick backlash that actually damages the brand. That is what happened in the case of Pandey's stunt. Several people called her out to have used a serious disease like cancer as a means of marketing. The response was hardly sensitive, and the amount of negative sentiment far outweighed any attention the campaign generated. Even if her cause was noble, the execution left much to be desired.
Similarly, the stress at work campaign by YesMadam brought out passionate emotions. They tried to cover this up with an explanation; however, the damage had already been done. Their integrity was questioned, and so was their reputation. The problem is not just the insensitivity of fake marketing, but also the risk of desensitizing the public to real issues. If everything becomes a stunt, then how do we differentiate between a genuine cause and a manipulative marketing tactic? In the case of Pandey’s death hoax, did people focus on cervical cancer, or did they just get caught up in the drama? The danger here is that, over time, audiences become numb to the real issues that need attention. In a world full of fakes, it becomes harder to believe the real messages.
Some would argue that any publicity is good publicity, but this isn’t always the case. If the viral moment cost is alienating your audience or damaging credibility, then it is worth it? Customers will eventually care about authenticity and trust, not about flashy, attention-grabbing short-term tactics. Indian startups especially need to realize that they must create a solid, reliable brand image, one that will stand the test of time, rather than trying to catch every fleeting moment.
In fact, for Indian startups, such fake marketing stunts can be a very high-risk affair. For any business, trust forms the core of growth and sustainability. Investors look for credibility, and customers dismiss brands they find manipulative or insincere. Startups must focus on meaningful relationships with their audiences and not cheap tricks that end up eroding their reputation.
Shockvertising might grab attention, but it's definitely not a sustainable or ethical marketing approach. Instead of gimmicks and fake stunts, brands should invest in honest, authentic campaigns that engage and educate their audiences. After all, building trust and brand loyalty is a long-term investment, not a quick fix.
As the dust settles on Poonam Pandey's stunt, so must the industry look inwardly at marketing practices. Does the cost of attention paid in shock value mean more than trust? It has to, for in the long term, authenticity trumps shock value.
Want to know what really works? Don’t Poonam Pandey your way into entrepreneurship or investment. Get in touch with BestVantage Investments and let’s do it better!
Comments