By Nicole Grant, Senior Vice President
As the old saying goes, “there’s no such thing as bad publicity.” Or is there? After the last few weeks the teams behind two controversial sports ads might not agree.
That phrase has never been entirely true and as any good PR pro will tell you, vetting for risk and understanding the reputational impact should ideally be baked into the marketing process. Both cases below have the added complexity of brands navigating very public partnership-led campaigns.
Good Good or bad bad?
In the first ad, promoting a brand partnership between Good Good Golf—a major golf YouTube-based creator group—and Callaway, the former’s co-founder tackles a female colleague to the ground as she reaches for his coveted golf club. It was meant to be funny. It wasn’t.
Both Good Good and Callaway faced backlash for the perceived depiction of violence against women and ignited conversation around women’s inclusion in sport. The brands removed the clip from their channels, but the fallout was swift. Headline news coverage, a series of statements from Callaway and the PGA Tour, very public finger-pointing and blame shifting between both parties, retailers removing products from shelves, canceled sponsorships, and senior leaders resigning from both sides.
There are a few lessons for brands here.
Intent does not outweigh impact. In an environment where audiences expect companies to demonstrate awareness of social issues, creative concepts should be pressure-tested through diverse perspectives long before they reach the public. The Good Good ad was approved by Callaway presumably through multiple senior leaders.
A strong partnership between PR and marketing is key. It helps identify reputational blind spots early, reducing the risk that a campaign becomes defined by controversy rather than the partnership or product it was designed to promote. It also creates the frameworks and review processes needed to spot potential issues and course-correct before launch. Too often, PR may be thought of as a tail-end function versus a critical early risk-detection centre. Being asked to “just PR the ad” after the investment in time and funds is an outdated way of working. Bring us into the planning and concepting stages earlier so we can identify risks and, hopefully, stop a crisis before it becomes a reputational nightmare. We also promise not to be the campaign “fun police”; pushing the envelope can and should happen in the right circumstances.
Sweeney’s ‘just sports’
The Good Good campaign wasn’t the only ad to ignite a comments section in support of women in sports.
Earlier this month, sports trading app Novig launched a racy ad campaign featuring actress Sydney Sweeney in various states of undress. The ad sparked similar backlash, including from female athletes, calling out the sexualization of women in sports. Sweeney, who is an equity holder in the company, has lost more than 200,000 followers on Instagram since the ad dropped.
While neither Sweeney or Novig have released an official statement in response to the backlash, Sweeney appeared to address the criticism by posting Instagram Stories of magazine covers and other photoshoots featuring nude athletes. She’s also no stranger to courting controversy in brand collaborations—like the firestorm around her American Eagle “Great Jeans” campaign last year, among others. Love it or hate it, you know what you’re getting into at this point as a brand choosing to partner with her: Attention through provocative, often contentious creative work.
At a recent industry event, Novig CEO Jacob Fortinsky defended the ad, saying the company is “hugely supportive of women’s sports” and that it is a “huge component of [the app’s] platform.” He also appeared to shift responsibility for the ad’s creative direction onto the actress instead of Novig: “It really was Sydney who was driving a lot of the visuals and the messaging.”
Rather than standing behind the brand’s decision-making and taking responsibility for their approach, the CEO chose to deflect accountability, putting the onus on their celebrity partner instead. The response echoed a common challenge in communications controversies similar to how the Good Good Golf and Callaway controversy played out too: blame-shifting between stakeholders, resulting in misaligned messages that can amplify scrutiny rather than contain it.
There’s still importance as a brand in working with your PR team to evaluate risk and your brand’s values and tolerance levels both pre-campaign—and even pre-partnership. It’s undeniable that Novig quickly earned brand awareness. Whether it translates to true business impact or eventually hurts future efforts with female sports enthusiast audiences, it’s too soon to tell.
PR risk management lessons from the Good Good Golf and Novig Controversies
For brands, the debate highlights a growing expectation that sports marketing reflects how audiences want to see athletes represented today. Campaigns that rely on outdated tropes may generate attention, but attention alone is a weak metric if it comes at the expense of credibility or trust.
For Novig, the ad strategy may have been to generate spectacle in the name of brand recognition. But another outcome they may not have expected was the degree to which they have now driven a wedge between their product and the many female athletes and everyday women who have spoken out against the ad.
The controversy speaks to a greater question for communications professionals: How much responsibility do brands have in shaping cultural conversations? Our work does not exist in a vacuum, and brands are increasingly expected to understand the broader social context in which their messages are received.
The most effective campaigns spark conversation for the right reasons by aligning creative ambition with evolving cultural expectations and stakeholder sentiment. With the right checks and balances—and closer collaboration between PR and Marketing—brands can create fun, cheeky campaigns that engage consumers rather than provoke polarization with long-term brand and financial risks.
