• by Maarten Albarda , Featured Contributor, February 28, 2025

In April of 2014 I wrote about what I dubbed SMFPs, or social media faux pas, which I defined as a sudden outburst of social media sharing stemming from an accidental or poorly judged piece of content created by a marketer. I used examples that were hot SMFPs at the time, which included US Airways, Chrysler and Air Canada.

The tenure of my original article was that SMFPs are unavoidable and unpredictable. The only thing marketers can do is to manage the aftermath of when they happen (because they will). I also said that, ultimately, things need to get really, really bad before an SMFP actually has an impact on a brand in terms of actual consumer backlash.

All the brands that I included survived, and in some cases thrived. Can you recall any of the “damaging issues” that were “big” social media outrage moments ten plus years ago?  The US Airways porn tweet? The #myNYPD disaster? The United Airlines breaks guitars video? Yeah, me neither.

Our current president has managed to turn the world of “social media faux pas” on its head. The SMFP is his brand. He seems to thrive on being shocking and politically incorrect. The more outrageous his comments, the more controversial his tweets, it seems they only strengthen his standing with his voters. This appears completely counterintuitive, unless you believe the old P.T. Barnum saying that “There's no such thing as bad publicity.”

For most brands and companies, however, an SMFP is usually is not a good look, and it certainly is a distraction for the marketing team and company leadership. That time spent could probably be more productive when directed at building the brand and the business.

The good news is that for most brands or companies, it takes a lot more to do actual brand damage through a SMFP. Typically, all that happens is a 24-hour social media storm, which rarely leads to an actual drop in sales. The only exception that I can think of is Bud Light and its one-off social media post featuring a trans person. This actually cost AB InBev real money. The brand had already lost market share before the infamous social media post, but after that post, it lost three points of share in one year. Since that drop, the trend is back to the slow decline, in line with other beer brands.

There are currently a number of social media calls for brand boycotts in response to businesses abandoning DEI initiatives or generally siding with the current government. There are even social media initiatives driving complete bans on American products and businesses, especially in locales like Canada, Europe and Mexico. And I wonder if this movement is different from an SMFP, and if it could have real impact.

History seems to indicate brands and businesses don’t have to worry about these things too much. Consumers forget quickly, and there’s such an onslaught of content every day that the outrage machine moves on very quickly.

But perhaps this time around, “Brand USA” and certain individual brands are more like “Bud Light” than “United breaks guitars.”  What do you think?