Some of the worst campaigns didn’t come from bad intentions. In fact, brands like Starbucks and the World Wildlife Fund had noble goals, hoping to make a difference or raise awareness. But despite those intentions, things went horribly wrong and sparked public backlash and huge financial losses. Other times, companies simply showed a lack of awareness and made decisions that had people asking, “What were they thinking?”
These big marketing blunders are often filled with misjudged messaging, awkward execution, and heaps of red tape. Leaders at these companies were often left scrambling, wondering how such an idea ever got the green light. In lucky cases, the brand walked away with some embarrassment. In worse cases, the damage was so severe it led to legal battles or even bankruptcy.
Hoover’s Free Flight Promotion
In the 1990s, Hoover tried to clear out extra stock of vacuum cleaners with what seemed like a tempting offer. They ran a promotion in the UK where customers could buy a vacuum for £100 and receive two free round-trip tickets to Europe or the US. On the surface, it seemed like a win-win — but the company overlooked one big problem: international flights were worth far more than £100. Unsurprisingly, over 200,000 people jumped at the chance to score free airfare just by buying the cheapest qualifying vacuum.
Shoppers ended up spending around £30 million on vacuums many of them didn’t actually want, just to claim the flights. But the travel costs ballooned, reaching over £50 million — and that doesn’t even include the extra legal fees from lawsuits. To handle the massive demand, Hoover’s team had to work overtime every day of the week, all for a vacuum that wasn’t even their top product. The financial fallout was so severe that the top marketing heads in the UK were let go, and Hoover’s British division was ultimately sold to Italian company Candy.
Sunny Co Clothing’s ‘Pamela’ Bathing Suit Instagram Giveaway
Sunny Co Clothing launched what they probably thought would be a fun and harmless Instagram giveaway. They offered a free red swimsuit modeled after the one in Baywatch — the “Pamela” — to anyone in the U.S. who reposted their image and tagged the company. The suit normally sold for about $65, but customers only had to pay shipping. What the company didn’t expect was how quickly the campaign would spiral out of control.
In just one day, the giveaway went completely viral. The original post got over 338,000 likes, and thousands more people reposted it, all hoping to score a free swimsuit. Overwhelmed by the attention, Sunny Co tried to rein things in by changing the giveaway rules on the fly. But by then, it was too late — the internet wasn’t happy. Orders flooded in faster than they could handle, and delays piled up.
Angry customers took to Facebook claiming the whole thing was a scam, especially after some were charged the full $65 price instead of just the $12.98 shipping fee. Eventually, Sunny Co had to refund those customers and fulfill thousands of free orders, which dealt a serious blow to their finances. In the end, this giveaway ended up being a chaotic mess that likely cost the company more than they ever expected.
Just For Feet’s 1999 ‘Kenya’ Ad
Just For Feet was a relatively unknown brand in 1999, and they were hoping a flashy Super Bowl ad would take them to the next level. Unfortunately, the ad they aired was controversial for all the wrong reasons and sparked major backlash.
The commercial showed a barefoot Kenyan runner being chased by white paramilitary men, who eventually drugged him and forced a pair of Just For Feet shoes on his feet. The public response was swift and harsh. The company later sued their advertising agency, Saatchi & Saatchi Business Communications, for what they claimed was malpractice — demanding more than $10 million in damages. They said they had concerns about the ad but went ahead anyway because it was too late and too expensive to make a new one. They’d already spent $900,000 producing the ad and paid $2 million for the airtime.
Adding to their woes, the “Just For Feet’s Third Quarter Super Bowl Win a Hummer Contest” flopped completely. The promotion encouraged viewers to count how many times the brand name appeared in the third quarter of the game, then submit their answers online or by phone to enter the sweepstakes. But since the ad aired in the fourth quarter, the correct answer was zero — which the website didn’t accept. Thousands of people called the contest a scam.
Shortly after all this, Just For Feet filed for bankruptcy, ending what might be one of the most disastrous ad campaigns in Super Bowl history.
Coca-Cola’s MagiCans Campaign
In 1990, Coca-Cola launched a bold promotion called MagiCans, where lucky buyers could open a can of soda and discover hidden cash prizes — sometimes up to $500. It was an ambitious campaign that showed Coca-Cola was willing to back up its marketing with real money. But the execution turned out to be a problem.
The idea was fairly straightforward: slip money inside a few cans and surprise the customer. But in order to make those money-filled cans weigh the same as regular ones, they added water as a counterbalance. That water was treated with chemicals like chlorine and ammonium sulfate to stop anyone from drinking it. But in a small number of cans — about 1% — the barrier between the water and the soda didn’t hold, leading to contamination.
Things took a serious turn when an 11-year-old boy drank from one of those tainted cans. Health officials got involved, and Coca-Cola was suddenly issuing ads warning customers not to drink the liquid in the prize cans — not exactly what you want to hear when opening a soft drink. Unsurprisingly, the public wasn’t thrilled with soggy, smelly cash or warnings about dangerous drinks.
Despite spending $4 million on the campaign, the company pulled the plug early. They insisted they received fewer than 25 actual complaints, but the damage to their reputation had already been done. Out of the 750,000 special cans created, only about 120,000 made it to market.
Red Lobster’s ‘Endless Crab’ Promotion
Red Lobster has long been known for its all-you-can-eat deals, especially those endless shrimp promotions and the ever-popular Cheddar Bay Biscuits. But when they rolled out their “Endless Crab” event, they seriously underestimated just how much seafood people could put away — and it almost cost them everything.
In 2003, snow crab prices were already soaring when the restaurant decided to go ahead with the “Endless Crab” special. The deal gave customers unlimited snow crab legs, and Red Lobster hoped most would stop after a couple of servings. But many patrons dug into three or more heaping plates, and the company ended up losing more than $3.3 million in less than two months. The campaign’s failure was so severe that it led to the resignation of company president Edna Morris.
American Airlines’s Lifetime AAirpass
Back in the early 1980s, American Airlines was facing financial trouble and came up with a bold idea to raise money fast. They introduced the AAirpass — a lifetime ticket offering unlimited first-class flights. It had a steep price tag of $250,000, and for an extra $150,000, buyers could add a companion who could fly with them anytime. There were even small discounts for senior citizens.
The airline assumed companies would buy these passes for their top executives to cut down on travel expenses. But instead, the passes mostly attracted wealthy individuals, famous athletes, and tech entrepreneurs. One man, Mike Joyce, spent $1 million on his pass in 1994 after winning a large legal settlement. Within a single month, he flew round-trip between Chicago and London 16 times. That alone would have cost around $125,000 — meaning he quickly got a huge return on his investment.
To limit the losses, American Airlines began carefully reviewing how the passes were being used. They hoped to catch people bending or breaking the rules so they could revoke the passes. Eventually, they did manage to cancel a few after uncovering cases where some pass holders were allegedly selling their companion tickets or using fake names. Whether those actions were truly against the rules was questionable, but lawsuits followed anyway.
By 1994, the airline ended the pass program. A decade later, they briefly brought it back in a 2004 Neiman-Marcus holiday catalog, offering the passes for a whopping $3 million. No one bought them, but the financial damage from the original AAirpass program had already cost the airline millions.
Chevy Tahoe’s ‘Make Your Own Commercial’ Campaign
Here’s a lesson brands keep learning the hard way: never hand over creative control to the internet. In 2006, Chevy decided to promote their Tahoe SUV by letting the public create 30-second commercials using a special online tool. It sounded like a fun and interactive idea — but the internet had other plans.
People could upload text over video clips of the SUV driving through scenic landscapes. While some users made genuine commercials, others used the opportunity to roast the brand. The most viral creations accused Chevy of harming the environment or included jokes about family safety gone terribly wrong.
For a few days, Chevy proudly displayed the user-generated content right on their official site. But as the negative and satirical ads started drawing more attention than the positive ones, the company quickly realized they’d made a big mistake.
World Wildlife Fund’s ‘Tsunami’ Campaign
The World Wildlife Fund ran an ad that was meant to highlight the devastation of the 2004 tsunami in East Asia — but instead, it stirred outrage for its tone-deaf comparison to the September 11 attacks.
The ad depicted a surreal image of dozens of airplanes flying toward the New York City skyline. Its message? The tsunami had killed “100 times” as many people as 9/11. It was an attempt to show the scale of the disaster, but it came off as deeply disrespectful to victims of the terror attacks. To make things worse, the ad debuted right before the eighth anniversary of 9/11, and the agency behind it later admitted the campaign “should have never been created, approved, or run.”
Oddly, the ad only ran once — in a small Brazilian newspaper. It wasn’t even created for public circulation. It was part of a shady tactic where agencies design shocking ads, publish them once, and then enter them into award shows as if they were mainstream campaigns. This particular ad seemed designed more to provoke than to promote a cause.
Barnes & Noble’s Race-Swapped Classic Covers
In February 2020, Barnes & Noble announced a campaign called “Diverse Editions” to celebrate Black History Month. The idea was to take well-known classics — like Frankenstein and The Wizard of Oz — and reissue them with new covers featuring characters with diverse ethnic backgrounds. Each book included a message on the back that read, “For the first time ever, all parents will be able to pick up a book and see themselves in a story.”
But the project was met with immediate criticism. Across social media, authors and readers accused the campaign of promoting “fake diversity”. Critics said that instead of placing new faces on old stories written by white authors, Barnes & Noble should have used the moment to spotlight actual Black writers and their work.
Author Dr. Nnedi Okorafor voiced strong opposition, writing, “It is not sincere or a solution. New stories by people of color about people of color is the solution. We get to tell our stories…”
Facing the intense backlash, Barnes & Noble scrapped the project just one day after announcing it. They released an official statement that said:
“We acknowledge the voices who have expressed concerns about the Diverse Editions project at our Barnes & Noble Fifth Avenue store and have decided to suspend the initiative… The covers are not a substitute for black voices or writers of color, whose work and voices deserve to be heard. The booksellers who championed this initiative did so convinced it would help drive engagement with these classic titles.”
Starbucks’s #RaceTogether Campaign
Starbucks has had its share of controversy over the years, often over cup designs or accusations of pushing certain values. But their #RaceTogether campaign went beyond that — and ended up being widely criticized for its awkward execution.
It started with a well-meaning goal. Starbucks’s CEO wanted the company to speak up about racial inequality in America. So baristas were encouraged to write #RaceTogether on coffee cups to spark conversations with customers about race. While the intention may have been sincere, the reality was messy. Baristas earning around $12 an hour were suddenly expected to lead deep conversations about racial issues — all while juggling orders in a busy store.
The campaign quickly became the butt of jokes and the subject of angry headlines. It didn’t help that only two of the company’s 19 top executives were Black, a fact many pointed out. The backlash grew so intense that the company’s head of communications temporarily deactivated his Twitter account.
Despite all the negative attention and the viral wave of online criticism, Starbucks stood by the campaign longer than most expected.
McAfrika Sandwich At McDonald’s
In 2002, as parts of Africa were suffering through a major famine affecting over 12 million people, McDonald’s chose that exact moment to launch a new African-themed sandwich — in Norway. It was called the McAfrika and was inspired by a traditional African recipe, served in pita bread. Unfortunately, the timing couldn’t have been worse. Just as the sandwich hit stores, global leaders were gathering in Johannesburg for the “Earth Summit.”
The public didn’t respond well. Critics slammed the McAfrika as “inappropriate and distasteful.”. Protesters from Norwegian Church Aid even showed up outside McDonald’s locations, handing out “catastrophe crackers,” — the real emergency food used in areas dealing with starvation. Initially, McDonald’s issued a half-hearted apology. They agreed to put donation boxes and posters in their restaurants, but refused to pull the McAfrika from the menu.
Eventually, the company reluctantly said they would “consider” donating a portion of the sandwich’s proceeds. But they scrapped plans to roll out the product on a wider scale.
Coca-Cola’s ‘Feel The Curves’ Campaign
In the early 1990s, Coca-Cola wanted to reintroduce its original glass bottles to appeal to a younger crowd. The new design had a sleeker, more curvaceous shape. So the brand came up with the tagline “Feel the Curves.” to highlight the change. But the campaign ended up causing embarrassment on a whole other level.
They hired a small design firm to create promotional artwork. Unfortunately, one graphic designer added a sneaky — and very inappropriate — detail. In one of the promotional posters, there was a tiny, hidden silhouette of a person performing oral sex. Nobody noticed the detail at first, but once the posters were printed and slapped onto delivery trucks, someone caught it.
By then, the damage was done. Coca-Cola had already spent $200,000 and sent the posters to 120,000 locations across South Australia. After receiving multiple complaints, the company had no choice but to pull the ads and deal with the embarrassment.
Holiday Inn’s ‘Bob Johnson’ Commercial
Holiday Inn made a big misstep in the late ’90s with a commercial that tried to use a transgender character as the punchline — and it backfired in a major way. The hotel chain wanted to highlight their $1 billion renovation investment, so they came up with an ad featuring a woman at her class reunion who had undergone gender affirmation surgery. Her former classmates are impressed — until one realizes she was once Bob Johnson.
Throughout the ad, the camera flashes price tags next to her body parts to emphasize the “upgrades.” It ends with a classmate backing away in shock after learning her former identity. Rather than being empowering or funny, the ad was criticized for being deeply insensitive and offensive toward the transgender community.
If airing it wasn’t bad enough, Holiday Inn chose to broadcast the commercial during the 1997 Super Bowl, giving it maximum visibility. Surprisingly, internal support for the ad was strong — franchisees reportedly favored it 5-to-1. The company spent $2 million to air the spot and claimed it earned them $10 million in media exposure. But most of that publicity was negative. After protests and public backlash, Holiday Inn finally decided to pull the commercial.
Peloton’s Holiday Ad
Peloton’s attempt at a feel-good holiday commercial quickly became a viral controversy. The ad, part of their “Gift That Gives Back” campaign, showed a woman receiving a Peloton bike from her “husband” as a holiday gift. While some viewers saw it as a motivational story, others — including comedian Eva Victor — pointed out how problematic it felt to receive an expensive fitness bike out of the blue, especially when the recipient already looked fit.
Victor’s parody of the ad went viral, mocking the awkwardness of the woman recording her fitness journey as if it were some strange form of approval-seeking. In her spoof, she ends up handing her “husband” divorce papers, poking fun at the ad’s underlying message about body image and societal pressure.
The ad became so infamous that the woman in it was dubbed the “Peloton girl”. Many felt the commercial subtly implied she needed to get in shape — even though she already looked toned at the beginning. The line she delivers at the end, “A year ago, I didn’t realize how much this would change me.”, only fueled the fire.
Peloton responded to the backlash by defending the ad. A spokesperson told CNN:
“We constantly hear from our members how their lives have been meaningfully and positively impacted after purchasing or being gifted a Peloton Bike or Tread, often in ways that surprise them. Our holiday spot was created to that fitness and wellness journey.”
“While we’re disappointed in how some have misinterpreted this commercial, we are encouraged by – and grateful for – the outpouring of support we’ve received from those who understand what we were trying to communicate.”
American Eagle’s ‘Good Jeans’ Ads
In July 2025, American Eagle launched a campaign featuring actress Sydney Sweeney to showcase their new denim line. The ads included shots of Sweeney in blue jeans, with one close-up focused on her chest and another where she delivers the line “Genes are passed down from parents to offspring, often determining traits like hair color, personality, and even eye color. My jeans are blue.”. The campaign’s tagline boldly stated: “Sydney Sweeney Has Great Jeans.”
While the company probably meant to play on the double meaning of the word “jeans,”, some people saw deeper issues in the messaging. Critics felt that focusing on Sweeney’s physical traits — blonde, blue-eyed, and curvy — alongside language about genetics sent a problematic message that seemed to glorify certain racial features. To add to the confusion, the campaign was also tied to raising awareness for domestic violence, with a portion of proceeds supporting Crisis Text Line.
Vice President of Marketing Ashley Schapiro shared a behind-the-scenes note on LinkedIn, explaining that Sweeney had been asked how far she wanted to “push it”. She reportedly responded, “Without hesitation, she smirked… and said, ‘Let’s push it, I’m game.'”. The post was later deleted after receiving pushback.
Eventually, American Eagle addressed the situation publicly on Instagram, stating: “Sydney Sweeney Has Great Jeans is and always was about the jeans. Her jeans. Her story. We’ll continue to celebrate how everyone wears their AE jeans with confidence, their way. Great jeans look good on everyone.”
Jack In The Box’s Commercials Alluding To Male Genitalia
In August 2018, Jack in the Box stirred up controversy with a TV commercial promoting their new teriyaki bowls. The spot featured the brand’s mascot, Jack, making repeated puns using the word “bowls.”. He tells his office coworkers that they have “nice bowls”, clearly leaning into a not-so-subtle joke that plays on the word “bowls” sounding like a crude slang for male anatomy.
Adweek’s David Griner described the commercial as “one of the most tone-deaf ads of the #MeToo era,”, pointing out that it was set in a corporate office where employees bantered with suggestive language, making the whole thing feel like an inappropriate workplace joke.
The ad tried to come off as playful and irreverent, even including a scene where a lawyer warns Jack not to use that kind of language. Jack, of course, plays dumb — a choice that critics said normalized inappropriate workplace behavior under the guise of humor.
Still, not everyone found it offensive. The ad agency behind the commercial, David & Goliath, stood firmly behind it and issued a statement together with Jack in the Box:
“As a brand known by its fans for its tongue-in-cheek, playful sense of humor, this ad is simply a creative and humorous expression around the teriyaki bowl product. It intends to highlight how a burger brand such as Jack in the Box dares to go beyond the usual fast food fare and serve something different.”
