Why brands should say 'No' to Yes Madam-style shock tactics

In a bold yet polarizing move, beauty and wellness brand Yes Madam recently faced online outrage after its marketing campaign featured a fictitious mass firing of employees to "raise awareness" about workplace stress and mental health. The backlash was swift, with consumers criticizing the brand's insensitivity, sparking discussions on the ethics of shock-value marketing.

This isn't the first time a brand has tried to use shock and outrage as a marketing strategy. Last year, there was the infamous Vim Black campaign that left people confused. Shock-value campaigns often attempt to generate immediate attention, but as seen in cases like the Poonam Pandey cervical cancer stunt , they can alienate audiences and harm a brand's long-term credibility.

Experts argue that shock-value tactics like the Yes Madam campaign risk alienating consumers rather than fostering engagement. Samit Sinha, founder of Alchemist Brand Consulting, emphasizes, “These stunts tend to devalue a brand rather than create meaningful connections. Established brands avoid such gimmicks for a reason—they’re risky and often counterproductive.”

Tarunjeet Rattan, Managing Partner at Nucleus PR, underscores the lack of strategic oversight in such cases: “When PR professionals are excluded from the concept stage, campaigns often fail to deliver a clear narrative and result in backlash instead of meaningful engagement.”

The risks are multifaceted, including alienating core audiences, sparking public outrage, and facing amplified scrutiny in a socially conscious market. As Rattan notes, “Stop disrespecting your audience and insulting their EQ and IQ. In many cases, backlash causes damage substantial enough to require significant spending to regain consumer trust.”

The Yes Madam campaign is reminiscent of the Poonam Pandey cervical cancer stun t, which exploited a sensitive health issue to ignite conversations. While the stunt aimed to raise awareness, its tone-deaf execution sparked criticism. According to N. Chandramouli, CEO of TRA Research, “Smart brands don’t chase fads. Instead, they invest in long-term credibility and avoid these ill-conceived stunts that only lead to PR crises.”

Such controversies raise broader concerns about ethical boundaries in marketing. Sensitive topics demand careful handling. “Brands should aim to provide educational value rather than exploiting issues for profit or attention,” stresses Rattan. The same principle applies to campaigns addressing mental health, where missteps can irreparably harm public sentiment.

Mental health remains a critical and deeply personal issue. Campaigns addressing it should prioritize empathy over sensationalism. Sinha calls for brands to “read the room” and consider the societal impact of their messaging. Similarly, Rattan suggests adhering to the "Golden Rule of Three: 1. Focusing on long-term trust with consumers; 2. Upholding the brand’s value book as a guiding framework; and 3. running all potentially polarizing concepts through PR teams before execution.

Yes Madam’s campaign has been criticized for its lack of nuance, underscoring the importance of foresight in campaign planning. Naysayers argue that such stunts trivialize real issues and exacerbate public distrust in brands.

Rattan emphasizes, “These missteps erode consumer affinity, making restoration efforts costly and difficult.” According to Sinha, innovative marketing should never come at the expense of consumer trust.

Yes Madam’s controversy serves as a reminder that shock-value campaigns may capture attention momentarily, but they carry significant long-term risks. While the brand has since clarified its intentions, asserting its commitment to mental health awareness, the public response underscores the growing demand for responsible marketing.