Wait, are we being played?

I come from the world of reputation management and brand rescue, where “what just happened?” is a weekly meeting. There’s a set of clichés you hear on loop: “Any PR is good PR.” “Any views are good views.” They’re glib, but they stick because sometimes they feel true. Oscar Wilde, long before social feeds, put it sharper: “There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about.” And Don Draper’s line from Mad Men might as well be stapled to every war room whiteboard: “If you don’t like what’s being said, change the conversation.”

Lately, I keep asking a different question. What if some brands and personalities aren’t running from controversy, they’re steering it? Not faking it, not manufacturing it, but recognizing that a flare-up, handled with discipline, can outrun any ad budget.

Consider two recent storylines that, on the surface, couldn’t be more different: Cracker Barrel’s fast U-turn on its logo, and Jimmy Kimmel’s suspension and return to late night.

Case 1: Cracker Barrel’s whiplash week. The chain tested a modernized logo, no more “Old Timer” illustration, and the internet did what the internet does. Shares sagged after the unveiling (coverage pegged the hit at roughly ~$100–$200M in market value during the initial reaction), and within 48 hours the company reverted to its legacy mark. Former President Donald Trump jumped in twice: first urging the company to restore the original logo, then, after the reversal, publicly congratulating the move with a flourish: “Good luck into the future. Make lots of money and, most importantly, make your customers happy again!” Reuters noted the stock popped about 7% on the reversal headline. In the following days, management said the quiet part out loud: the change had underestimated the deep emotional tie to the old look, and the company paused remodel plans to lean back into nostalgia.

Public awareness (survey): 65% of Americans aware of the logo change. And that’s just in America.

Case 2: Kimmel’s spike. After remarks in a monologue about media host Charlie Kirk’s killing, ABC benched Kimmel for nearly a week; several big affiliate groups kept the show off their air even after the return. When he came back on Sept. 23, 2025, the audience surged: roughly 6.26 million on broadcast (his best in a decade) and ~26 million views across platforms for the monologue, despite the blackout in major markets. On social, Trump critiqued his ratings; Kimmel’s numbers that night became the punchline.

A YouGov poll showing that 53% of Americans had seen and chosen a side on Jimmy Kimmel. That’s a lot of people.

So what are we seeing as a common denominator prior to the controversy?

• Cracker Barrel, weakening growth, competitive pressure from breakfast/restaurant chains.
• Jimmy Kimmel, late-night show losing traditional TV viewership across the board, due to streaming competition.

« If nothing is working, change the conversion »

So we have two very different brands, same dynamic: outrage → amplification → outcome. And no, that doesn’t mean “controversy always works.” Ask Bud Light. After its 2023 influencer flashpoint, the sales slide stuck around and rival brands seized share. Budweiser failed to do step 5 and 6 of the Controlled Controversy Playbook.

1. Spark a sharp moment (intended or not). A visible change or comment creates a jolt, something that demands a take.
2. Let the conversation run. Resist flailing. If you immediately contradict yourself, you lose consistency.
3. Expect outside amplification. Media figures, elected officials, and creators will carry your name into feeds you never buy against.
4. Harvest the reach. At peak attention, your name is everywhere, free attention you couldn’t purchase at scale.
5. Make a decisive move. Double down with clarity, or reverse cleanly and own the reversal.
6. Convert or contain. Turn attention into a clear win (viewers, sign-ups, sales) or put tight limits on the fallout.

So, are we being played? Sometimes, yes, and sometimes we’re watching capable operators do something more subtle: turn a sprawling, angry conversation into a single point they can manage. Cracker Barrel ended in a place that aligns with its core fans. Markets and customers quickly understood the stance, and the company even got a secondary story out of the reversal (“we listened” + “we’re restoring stores”). Kimmel, or more likely his higher-uppers, turned a low-attention show in late night into a national TV event, on a night when a chunk of the country couldn’t even see him on broadcast.

How it plays out in the long run is to be seen.

Budweiser failed to do step 5 and 6 of the Controlled Controversy Playbook.

Back to where I started. Wilde’s quip gets quoted because it maps to how feeds work. But Wilde wasn’t running a P&L. The smarter mantra, the one I use with teams, is is a modification of Draper’s quote: change the conversation, which could become, « If nothing is working, change the conversion ». In both cases here, that is what happened. Cracker Barrel’s conversation shifted from “new logo?” to “we heard you.” Kimmel’s shifted from “low ratings” to “I want to fight for freedom of speech + record ratings.”

Is there risk? Absolutely. But with clean language, decisive moves, and a clear finish, the right kind of storm can carry you farther than a year of ad spend.

The trick isn’t to seek controversy. It’s to be ready when it finds you, with one story to tell, one move to make, and one way to turn the page.

Ironically, I am now writing about both brands.

My name is Brook Zimmatore. I write about everything I am interested in from brand, crisis comms, reputation management and always splash in AI and tech trends. Connect with me!