In an exclusive interaction with MediaBrief, Darshana Shah, Brand & CX Strategist and Founder, Darshana Shah – Advisory & Consulting; Shakir Jamil, Head of Marketing at CREX; and Venkat Mallik, Founder and CEO, J7, speak about the Sydney Sweeney-Novig campaign, the role of controversy in driving attention, the line between provocative and objectifying advertising, and what the campaign says about the representation of women in sport.
For those unfamiliar with the campaign, sports prediction platform Novig brought actor Sydney Sweeney on board for a campaign built around its “just sports” proposition. The campaign uses Sweeney across a series of sports-themed settings, with the creative relying heavily on provocative imagery and the actor’s celebrity appeal to attract attention.
The campaign, launched on September 9, quickly became a talking point online, with much of the discussion shifting from Novig’s sports prediction proposition to the way Sweeney was portrayed. The creative subsequently drew criticism from female athletes, bringing questions around sexualisation, representation and the use of women’s bodies in sports-related advertising into the wider industry conversation.
That makes the campaign a useful case study in a familiar advertising tension: provocative creative can generate immediate attention, but the attention only becomes meaningful brand building when audiences also understand and remember what the brand stands for. Against this backdrop, MediaBrief spoke to the three industry voices on what the campaign means for brands and marketers.
Can controversy drive attention without overshadowing the brand proposition?
The campaign has demonstrated the ability of provocative creative to generate conversation. But whether that attention strengthens the brand depends on what audiences ultimately take away from the campaign.
When asked whether the campaign demonstrates that controversy can still be an effective attention strategy, or whether the creative is overshadowing the brand proposition, Darshana Shah, Brand & CX Strategist and Founder, Darshana Shah – Advisory & Consulting, says, “Controversy can certainly generate attention, but attention by itself is not the same as effective brand building. The Novig campaign has clearly succeeded in getting people to talk about the brand—the campaign has generated significant online discussion since its September 9 launch.
“The more important question is what people remember after the conversation moves on. If the dominant association is Sydney Sweeney and the controversy around the execution, rather than what Novig actually offers and why it is different, then the creative risks becoming bigger than the brand proposition.
“There is nothing inherently wrong with provocative advertising,” adds Shah. “But provocation needs to serve a strategic purpose. The strongest attention-led campaigns create curiosity and then convert that attention into brand meaning. Otherwise, brands can end up optimising for visibility rather than relevance.”
Taking a more product-focused view of the campaign, Shakir Jamil, Head of Marketing at CREX, the cricket-focused digital platform, says, “Controversy remains a reliable mechanism for immediate reach, but Novig’s campaign illustrates the risk of high-volume attention diluting a brand’s actual product message.
He continues, “The company’s core positioning was strictly product-focused: a sports prediction exchange offering ‘just sports,’ free from political or cultural distractions. However, by executing this through hyper-sexualized imagery, the creative strategy immediately hijacked the product narrative.
“While multi-million impressions validate its top-of-funnel reach, the conversation centered entirely on gender representation rather than product differentiation or market mechanics. When creative execution completely obscures the brand proposition, high reach yields controversy rather than long-term platform trust.”
Venkat Mallik, Founder and CEO, J7, sees the campaign as delivering value on attention while acknowledging the weakness around brand messaging. He says, “The answer is yes to both.
“Controversy is definitely an effective way to get consumer attention especially in the current times. But quite obviously it shouldn’t be just controversy for the sake of it – and ideally a controversy which opens up the brand’s context.
“In the case of the Sydney Sweeney campaign for Novig, the brand’s awareness and interest went up substantially and based on media sources its App store rankings jumped up many places and its media mentions jumped 9 times. That is quite valuable from one lead initiative like this one.
“However, a lot more of the chatter about the campaign has been about the controversy and not about what Novig does – that is believed to be less than 4% of the total chatter. In that sense the campaign has got the attention but not necessarily delivered the brand message.
He continues, “While in the case of a classic or mainstream brand one could say that is a big miss, in the case of Novig which would have been relatively unknown as a brand & given that its business is about sports prediction and peer to peer sports trading / betting – I would think just getting the attention is great. Many more people would now know what Novig really does and that would only help grow the Novig business.”
Where does provocative advertising cross the line?
The discussion around Novig also raises a more fundamental creative question: when does provocation help a brand cut through the clutter, and when does the execution itself become the story?
Shah says, “The line should be drawn around context, relevance and consequence. Before asking whether an idea will get attention, brands need to ask: Does this idea strengthen what we want the brand to stand for, and does the execution respect the audience and the context in which it appears?
“Provocation works when it challenges a convention, creates a fresh perspective or makes people think differently about the category. It becomes problematic when the shock value becomes the primary idea and the person or community represented becomes merely a device to generate attention.
“In this case, the criticism from female athletes is important because the campaign is not operating in isolation; it uses the visual language of sport while presenting a highly sexualised portrayal. That response should be part of how marketers evaluate the effectiveness of such work not simply the number of views or conversations it generates.”
Jamil places the emphasis on whether the provocation remains connected to the product itself. He says, “The line is crossed when provocative execution ceases to serve the core product utility and relies on outdated tropes for shock value.
“If removing the provocative imagery causes the underlying brand message to collapse or appear hypocritical such as claiming to champion ‘just sports’ while showcasing no actual sport, the campaign has crossed from disruptive into regressive territory.”
For Mallik, the potential reputational impact also has to be considered alongside the benefits of attention. He says, “In today’s woke world, objectification and other regressive ideas are likely to have a significant negative impact on brands that try it. It could, in some cases, lead to the brands getting boycotted as well. So that is a no go strategy for conventional brands. However, brands that live on the edge of the moral compass could probably get away with it if they are allowed to advertise.
“But it must be said that controversy which opens up an opportunity for the brand to deliver its proposition is obviously a good strategy. Because that would then combine attention with brand messaging. If that in turn leads to the desired consumer behavior – then it’s a winning strategy.
“However,” he adds, “brands should remember that attention is important but brand reputation is irreplaceable and controversies that end up compromising brand reputation definitely need to be avoided.”
What does the campaign say about the representation of women in sport?
As touched upon earlier, the Novig campaign also sits within a larger shift in sports. Women’s sport is attracting greater media attention, audiences and commercial interest, raising the question of how brands should represent women within that ecosystem. The campaign has brought that issue into sharper focus, particularly following criticism from female athletes.
Shah says, “Women’s sport is gaining commercial visibility, which also raises the bar for how brands represent women within that ecosystem. The opportunity today is to move beyond using women’s bodies or celebrity appeal as shorthand for attention and instead reflect the performance, ambition, personality and cultural influence of women in sport.
“For marketers, the lesson is broader: as categories become more culturally visible, the responsibility attached to representation becomes greater too. Creative freedom and commercial ambition can coexist with cultural sensitivity, but that balance requires judgement rather than simply chasing what is likely to go viral.”
Jamil connects the campaign to the broader commercial growth of women’s sport. He says, “At a time when women’s sports are driving record viewership, commercial investment, and global engagement, this campaign highlights an outdated playbook within sports-adjacent marketing.
“The immediate, widespread response from prominent female athletes challenging the ad with real footage of athletic excellence under the message ‘this is what women in sports look like’ signals a clear market shift. Modern sports audiences demand representation built on performance, skill, and dedication. Reverting to sensationalized tactics misjudges where sports culture is today and undermines the real commercial progress across the ecosystem.”
Mallik, however, views the campaign as a specific attention-led execution rather than a broader reflection of sports marketing. He says, “Women’s sports is beginning to get its due and respect for sportswomen is growing. As media attention and following grows we are seeing more and more women sporting icons emerge in India and across the world.
“At a time like this the representation of women in sport needs to be a lot more respectable in general. And the people who are taking more offense to this campaign are sports women rather than activists protesting the objectification of women.
He adds, “This campaign is not really a comment on the state of sports marketing in general. In fact, Novig is a fringe sporting brand – being into peer-to-peer sports trading / betting. It’s just one campaign designed to drive attention and is unlikely to be the trend that other regular sports marketing brands follow. Those will probably still want to show women expressing themselves in their sporting avatar.”
The Novig campaign has moved the conversation beyond celebrity and controversy to a broader question around what brands are willing to do to earn attention, and what that attention ultimately delivers. The three perspectives point to a common tension: while provocative work can create visibility and spark conversation, its longer-term value depends on how effectively the attention connects back to the brand and the proposition.
As brands look to create work that cuts through, the Novig controversy highlights the need to balance creative provocation with relevance, cultural context and the credibility of the brand itself.
