Live Nation tried to keep the messages out of trial. The Justice Department argued they contradicted the customer-first image the company presented in its opening statements. A federal judge ordered their release in full.

The Context

Ticketmaster controls about 80% of major U.S. venue ticketing and made over $25 billion last year. The proposed federal settlement would require $280 million in damages and a 15% cap on service fees at amphitheaters. That amount represents around four days of revenue. More than 26 states, including New York, Massachusetts, and California, have rejected the terms and promised to continue independent litigation.

Live Nation’s Response

A spokesperson called it a “Slack exchange from one junior staffer to a friend” that “does not reflect our values or how we operate.”

How PeakMetrics Tracked the Narrative

To track how this story spread online, PeakMetrics used its AI-powered Smart Categories to segment the conversation around Live Nation and the trial. Instead of relying on keyword flags or manual tagging, Smart Categories use large language models to read each post in context and assign it to the relevant theme. This approach reflects what people were genuinely discussing online.

Across thousands of posts from March 12th, the day the messages were released, through March 13th, as brand backlash began to build and the story moved from courtroom to culture, six distinct narrative themes emerged. Here’s how they broke down.

What the Conversation Actually Looked Like

Customer Contempt and Brand Arrogance dominated at 83.1% of the conversation. The leaked comments hit harder than a legal filing or a pricing complaint. Calling your own customers “so stupid” and laughing about it signals a character issue, not a policy problem. Audiences reacted accordingly; the phrase became the story.

Consumer Exploitation and Fee Gouging made up 10.6% of the conversation. The specific charges in the messages, including $250 for parking, $199 for VIP club access, and fees set higher than what customers knowingly agreed to, gave people clear numbers to attach their frustration to.

Antitrust Case and Legal Developments accounted for only 3.7%. Despite this being an important federal trial with a DOJ settlement and active state coalitions, the legal aspect barely registered. The policy story was real, but the outrage story was louder.

Monopoly and Market Power Criticism came in at 1.3%, followed by Political Framing and General Commentary at 0.5% each, and Not Applicable at 0.2%.

Notably, in the week prior to the messages being released, 91% of the conversation around Live Nation and the lawsuit was focused on political framing, antitrust developments, and monopoly discussions. The moment the Slack exchanges became public, that changed entirely. The release of the messages moved the story from a legal dispute to a personal one.

This breakdown tells a clear story about how reputational crises spread. Legal exposure creates the conditions, but it is the human moment, expressed in plain language, that turns a lawsuit into a cultural flashpoint.

One More Layer: Bots Were in the Room

The numbers above reflect the overall conversation, but there is an important asterisk. In the 48 hours after the story broke on March 12th and 13th, nearly one in three posts, or 30.9%, was generated by bots.

Most of these were retweets, and 82% of the bot-driven conversation clustered around the same top topic as the human conversation: Customer Contempt and Brand Arrogance. This alignment is worth noting. Bots did not create the outrage or redirect it; they amplified an existing signal.

Whether this amplification was an algorithmically-driven pile-on or a coordinated effort is a separate question, but the effect was the same: a story that was already dominating the conversation gained more momentum in a highly emotional way.

For brands and communicators observing this in real time, this distinction matters. The contempt narrative was not fabricated. It was real, widespread, and had its own momentum before automation affected it. The bots simply added fuel to a fire that was already burning.

Connect with our team to learn more.

The clip was meant to promote the new menu item. Instead, it quickly became a talking point across social media as users debated the CEO’s reaction and what it said about the brand.

But the story didn’t spread the way many viral brand moments do.

Instead of exploding overnight, the conversation moved gradually across platforms as clips were reposted, reactions piled on, and users added their own commentary. The narrative ultimately spiked in early March.

So we decided to take a closer look.

Using PeakMetrics’ Smart Categories, we analyzed posts across X, Reddit, TikTok, Instagram, Bluesky, and YouTube from February 3 through March 3 that referenced McDonald’s and Kempczinski.

Smart Categories use AI prompts to organize large volumes of online posts into structured intelligence based on themes, tones, and signals within the conversation. Instead of relying only on traditional metrics like mention volume or overall sentiment, this approach breaks the conversation into the specific types of discussion happening around a topic.

When we categorized the McDonald’s discussion this way, the results told a more detailed story than a typical “CEO backlash” headline.

How the Internet Framed the Moment

Humorous / Mocking: 35.3%

Political or Economic Framing: 19.6%

Competitive Framing (Burger King comparisons): 18.8%

Direct Personal Criticism: 15.6%

Commentary on the Backlash: 9.5%

Supportive or Defensive: 1.2%

The biggest takeaway: much of the conversation wasn’t outrage…it was entertainment.

Humor Drove the Conversation

The largest portion of posts — 35.3% of the discussion — framed the moment humorously.

Users joked about the perceived awkwardness of the video, shared memes, and circulated reaction clips poking fun at the CEO’s reaction to the burger.

This is common in viral brand moments. While headlines often frame these situations as backlash, much of the engagement actually comes from people participating in internet humor rather than expressing genuine anger.

The Moment Sparked Broader Leadership Conversations

Nearly one in five posts (19.6%) framed the moment through a political or economic lens.

These posts moved beyond the video itself and discussed larger themes around McDonald’s leadership and strategy, including pricing, executive compensation, and the company’s broader direction.

In many cases, the video became a starting point for a wider conversation about the company.

Burger King Entered the Narrative

Another 18.8% of the conversation referenced McDonald’s competitor Burger King.

Much of this discussion centered around a spoof video released by Burger King that playfully mocked the original Big Arch clip. The parody circulated widely online and prompted users to compare the two brands.

Moments like this show how quickly competitors can enter and reshape a narrative once a brand begins trending online.

Criticism Was Present — But Smaller Than Headlines Suggested

Direct criticism of Kempczinski accounted for about 15.6% of posts.

These mentions focused on critiques of his leadership style, his background in brand management, or perceptions that the video felt overly corporate.

Criticism was certainly present, but it represented a smaller share of the conversation than humor or competitive commentary.

The Internet Also Commented on the Backlash

Another 9.5% of posts focused less on the video itself and more on the reaction surrounding it.

These posts debated whether the criticism was fair or discussed how social media can quickly amplify relatively small moments into major narratives.

This type of meta-discussion about the internet itself is becoming increasingly common.

Why Narrative Intelligence Matters

Moments like this highlight a challenge many organizations face.

Traditional monitoring tools can show that a conversation is happening, but they often struggle to explain why it is spreading or how it is being framed.

By organizing conversations into themes and signals, Smart Categories help teams quickly determine whether a moment represents a genuine reputational threat or simply the internet entertaining itself.

Seeing Through the Noise

The Big Arch burger moment shows how a single piece of content can evolve into a layered online narrative.

Humor, competitor engagement, leadership commentary, and discussion about the backlash itself emerged across platforms.

Without structured analysis, these signals can easily get lost in the overall volume of conversation.

Narrative intelligence helps organizations see what is actually driving the discussion — and respond with clarity when it matters most. Learn more.

We tracked hundreds of thousands of brand mentions across Twitter, Reddit, and news/web sources during Super Bowl LX, covering six categories: alcohol, snacks, AI, cars, sports betting, and non-alcoholic beverages. We measured volume, sentiment, engagement, reach, bot activity, and what we call Super Bowl campaign penetration (the share of a brand’s total conversation that was actually tied to the Super Bowl) to build a complete picture of who broke through and who fell flat.

Download the Full Report

The results challenged some assumptions. Here are a few that stood out.

Budweiser dominated the conversation. 70.6% of all Budweiser mentions were Super Bowl-specific, the highest campaign penetration of any brand in any category. The Clydesdales still work. Add in 2k+ average retweets per post, and the dominance was clear.

Lay’s had the best ad reception we measured. A 65.2% favorability rating and a 34.4 positive-to-negative ratio made Lay’s the most universally liked brand of Super Bowl LX.

Claude punched way above its weight. This was the first AI Super Bowl, with seven companies running spots. But Claude and ChatGPT generated virtually identical Super Bowl-specific buzz despite Claude having less than half the total brand volume. Anthropic’s “ad-free” counter-narrative against OpenAI’s simultaneous ad rollout produced direct comparison coverage across CNBC, CNN, Fortune, and Fox News, with a lower bot rate and higher per-post reach than its rival.

Doritos proved you can’t skip the Super Bowl. No ad. No problem? Not quite. Doritos hit 31% Super Bowl penetration (the highest in the snacks category) driven entirely by fan disappointment over a lack of a Doritos ad. Turns out, not showing up generates its own conversation. Mostly negative…

Cadillac made news, not friends. The F1 car reveal drove the second-highest Super Bowl campaign penetration of any brand we tracked (19%), but it was the only auto brand with negative-leaning sentiment, compounded by the Michael Bay lawsuit.

Fanatics had the biggest megaphone and the most backlash. 39.6 million average reach per post (thanks, Kendall Jenner), but also the most polarizing brand in the sports betting category.

These are just the highlights. The full report goes deeper across all six categories with volume and share of voice breakdowns, sentiment analysis, bot activity assessments, reach and engagement metrics, narrative trends, and category-by-category winner rankings.

Read the Full Report

What Actually Happened

The controversy began on January 5, when the Department of Homeland Security publicly accused a Hilton-affiliated Hampton Inn in Lakeville, Minnesota, of canceling ICE agent reservations after discovering their agency affiliation. Screenshots of hotel emails circulated widely, showing the hotel stating it would not accept immigration enforcement agents as guests.

Hilton responded quickly. The company clarified that the hotel was a franchise and had acted in violation of brand standards. Corporate issued a statement, initiated removal of the hotel from its system, and emphasized that Hilton does not support any form of discrimination.

That statement helped slow some of the boycott chatter and reframed parts of the conversation. But the campaign against Hilton had already found traction — and a different set of dynamics had kicked in.

What the Data Shows: The Incident Was Highly Amplified

From January 4 to January 6:

• Hilton was mentioned roughly 580,000 times on X (formerly Twitter)

• 283,453 posts connected Hilton to ICE, migrants, “aliens,” or Trump

• Over 60,000 posts explicitly called for a boycott

• Around 51,540 posts compared Hilton to the Bud Light backlash

Hilton’s response landed quickly, but the controversy kept gaining traction as coordinated messaging continued to drive the conversation.

Nearly 39% of the Hilton Conversation Came From Bots

Bot activity during this period reached 38.6%, far above the standard baseline seen in large brand events. That total includes:

• 11.7% “Almost Certain” bots

• 13.7% “Very Likely” bots

• 13.2% “Likely” bots

These weren’t just random retweets or low-effort engagement. They were part of a strategic campaign using repetitive messaging, centralized templates, and coordinated timing to maximize visibility and pressure.

How the Amplification Worked

Template Messaging

The dominant feature of the campaign was its message discipline. Thousands of accounts posted identical or near-identical phrasing, including:

• “BREAKING: Nick Sortor confronted the Minnesota Hilton hotel and exposed…”

• “Boycott Hilton!”

• “Hilton Hotels cancels reservations for ICE agents!”

• “Hilton decided to Bud Light themselves.”

These posts were deployed in synchronized waves across unrelated accounts. Rather than spreading organically through viral engagement or influencer lift, they relied on sheer repetition and volume to flood feeds and trend surfaces.

The Bud Light Comparison

The most consistent narrative frame was the comparison to Bud Light, a conservative-led boycott that inflicted long-term brand damage in 2023–2024. That reference wasn’t incidental. It was a deliberate psychological cue, designed to invoke precedent, activate prior outrage networks, and signal threat credibility.

By invoking a recent example of “successful” corporate punishment, the messaging gave participants a clear playbook, and gave the boycott campaign emotional momentum.

Narrative Structure and Sentiment Breakdown

The amplified discourse broke into five dominant clusters:

1. Direct boycott calls using simple, imperative language

2. “Bud Light” comparisons, suggesting Hilton had committed irreversible brand suicide

3. Pro-ICE accounts framing Hilton as anti-ICE

4. Franchise vs. corporate debate, with minimal traction

5. Counter-narratives, mostly progressive, defending the hotel — largely drowned out

Sentiment within the bot-amplified content was overwhelmingly negative:

• 92% negative

• 6% neutral

• 1% positive (mostly limited to progressive praise)

This skew shows how the amplification didn’t just increase volume, it flooded the platform with a highly disciplined, one-sided narrative.

Why This Matters

The Hilton–ICE controversy is a clear example of how modern backlash operates in two layers:

• The surface layer: a real, localized incident that triggered attention and concern

• The infrastructure layer: a coordinated effort to escalate that incident into a broader ideological battle

Hilton’s swift response likely helped limit long-term damage. But the intensity and structure of the backlash, driven in part by bot activity, message repetition, and strategic framing, show how vulnerable even fast-moving brands are to amplification campaigns.

This wasn’t just about one hotel. It became about Hilton’s perceived politics, corporate values, and identity. And that shift wasn’t entirely organic.

Key Takeaways for Brands

1. Speed helps, but doesn’t always control the narrative. Hilton’s fast statement helped slow escalation, but couldn’t fully counter the momentum of coordinated messaging.

2. Coordinated backlash looks different from viral criticism. Look for synchronized posts, high repetition, and ideological hooks like “Bud Light” to spot the difference.

3. Sentiment skews are often manufactured. When bot-driven content dominates, public perception can quickly distort beyond reality.

In a polarized media landscape, the question isn’t whether backlash is real. It’s how much of it is real, and how much is being engineered.

To learn more about PeakMetrics’s bot detection, request a demo.

Before anything else, we want to thank our customers, investors, advisors, partners, journalists, and the entire PeakMetrics team. Your trust, feedback, and support shaped everything we built this year.

Before we look ahead to 2026, here are some of the highlights that defined 2025.

Navigating the Manipulated Internet

The internet isn’t just faster. It’s increasingly shaped by artificial amplification, coordinated activity, and synthetic content. With up to 90% of online content expected to be AI-generated by next year, PeakMetrics focused in 2025 on helping teams cut through manipulation, understand what’s real, and act with confidence.

Launching AI Tools That Made an Immediate Impact

We released some of the strongest features we have ever built. Smart Categories helped teams understand the themes and issues driving online conversations. Narrative Quantification showed how stories formed, spread, and gained traction. AI Summaries delivered instant clarity. Automated Reporting turned long reporting cycles into a few minutes of focused work.

Customers told us their analysis workflows dropped from 8-10 hours to around ten minutes. That kind of shift shaped every decision we made this year.

"This saves us 10+ hours weekly"- VP, Global Crisis Communications Firm

Helping Explain the Stories Everyone Followed

In a year defined by a manipulated internet, PeakMetrics insights surfaced critical context behind the narratives shaping the news cycle. Reporters used our data to track the Sydney Sweeney and American Eagle conversation. We surfaced the bot activity behind the Cracker Barrel boycott narrative. We identified early breach language around the Tea Dating Advice app before the breach became public.

We traced coordinated attempts to discredit Ukraine. We watched HBO Max take advantage of a viral name shift. And we mapped how a fake headline briefly moved the market. These moments showed how valuable it is to understand who is driving a story and why it spreads.

Seeing our insights used by reporters at The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, CNN, POLITICO, Marketing Brew and others was a highlight of the year and a validating moment for our team.

Growing Faster Than Ever

This was our strongest growth year to date, with 4X year-over-year growth across commercial and public sector customers. Teams adopted PeakMetrics as their daily intelligence layer, and many shifted entire workflows onto the platform. The most encouraging feedback was also the simplest. This makes my team faster. This gives us deeper clarity. This helps us act with confidence.

Recognized for Innovation and Impact

We were honored to win the 2025 US-Japan Global Innovation Challenge. We also received the Global Infosec Award for Hot Company in AI-Powered Threat Detection and Response, the Globee Award for Most Innovative Company of the Year for Customer Excellence, and the Cybersecurity Excellence Award in the Cyber Threat Intelligence category. We were also finalists for the Los Angeles Business Journal Disruptor Awards.

These recognitions reflect the effort and momentum of our entire community.

Sharing Our Work with Leaders Across Industries

We spoke at Wall Street Journal Live, the World Business Forum, AI Horizons, HIMSS, and other major conferences. We joined important conversations about the rise of synthetic influence and the growing cost of malign activity, which Gartner now estimates will exceed five hundred billion dollars by 2028.

Growing an Exceptional Team

We expanded our team with new top talent from Recorded Future, FiscalNote, Quorum and other companies. Their expertise strengthened our engineering, insights, and product capabilities and helped us take the platform forward in meaningful ways.

Looking Ahead to 2026

We have some exciting things on the way. Customers asked for deeper mitigation & response capabilities, and we agree they are essential. Next year, we will introduce workflows that help teams not only detect harmful narratives but also respond to them directly in-platform. This includes enhanced tools that help teams move from awareness to action.

The information environment will keep evolving. Synthetic content will rise. Narratives will move faster. Teams will continue to need context, clarity, and confident decision-making. We are ready for that future and excited for what comes next.

Thank you again for being part of this year. We are grateful for every conversation, every insight, and every opportunity to build PeakMetrics with you.

See you in 2026.

Nick and Bobby

P.S. Coming off a great dinner with communications leaders in NYC, we’re launching a small dinner series in cities across the U.S. If you’re interested in joining a future dinner, you can sign up here.

The discussion gained momentum as political figures and parent advocacy groups began weighing in, prompting widespread media coverage and responses from health organizations. Institutions such as the World Health Organization, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Autism Science Foundation reaffirmed that existing research does not prove a causal relationship. Still, what began as a scientific clarification quickly evolved into a broader, emotionally driven conversation. Online communities fragmented into legal, scientific, and deeply personal narratives, setting the stage for a rapid surge in attention across X.

PeakMetrics analyzed a sample of 437,131 posts between September 19 and November 4 to understand how the conversation spread, where it gained momentum, and the role automated accounts played in prolonging its visibility.

How it started

In the days leading up to the joint announcement by Donald Trump and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on September 22, speculation began circulating about what the two might reveal. When they claimed that Tylenol use during pregnancy could be linked to autism diagnoses, the topic exploded across platforms, reaching its peak on September 23rd.

How bots changed the picture

Nearly 30% of the posts on X analyzed by PeakMetrics were likely to almost certainly driven by automated accounts. While these bots did not create the narrative, but they played a noteworthy role in amplifying it. Bot activity consistently followed human spikes, trailing just behind each surge in attention.

As our director of insights, Molly Dwyer, shared with Marketing Brew, “More of the content that we’re seeing is not necessarily created by bots, but is being amplified by bots,” she said. “That’s messing with our sense of reality and what matters.”

93% of bot activity consisted of reposting existing content rather than original content—a telltale sign of amplification behavior rather than narrative creation. The clusters that emerged appeared to be tied to engagement farming, “medical freedom” networks, and litigation marketing rather than state-backed influence. In practice, that meant bots prolonged each wave of attention, making fringe claims appear more mainstream and sustaining their reach long after organic engagement would have faded.

What the conversation looked like

Sentiment across the conversation was predominantly negative. Overall, 65.8% of posts expressed unfavorable views toward Tylenol, 23.8% were neutral, and 10.4% were favorable. Bots were slightly more negative than human users, with 68.2% of their posts unfavorable compared with 64.5% among human posts. Corrective or favorable narratives gained occasional traction but faded quickly once amplification slowed.

The narratives that defined the debate

The Tylenol conversation was shaped by three broad groups of narratives, each reinforcing the emotional intensity of the moment.

Unfavorable narratives dominated.
A large portion of the conversation centered on claims that Tylenol causes autism, along with political commentary, distrust in public institutions, litigation recruitment, and highly emotional posts from parents expressing anger, guilt, or betrayal. These narratives traveled the furthest because they tapped into fear, frustration, and long-standing skepticism toward pharmaceutical companies and government health agencies.

Neutral narratives provided context but rarely drove engagement.
News reports, legal updates, scientific “more research needed” discussions, and public-health explainers made up a smaller portion of the conversation. These posts helped shape the informational backdrop but did not influence the trajectory of the discussion in a meaningful way.

Favorable narratives offered reassurance but were short-lived.
Myth-busting from medical professionals, peer support among mothers, and occasional posts defending Tylenol’s safety record created brief moments of balance. However, these messages rarely held attention for long without sustained amplification.

What it means

X (Twitter) already skews right, and while the conversation grew more unfavorable toward Tylenol on the platform, this didn’t drastically shift mass public opinion—it validated what people in those spaces already believed. People who were skeptical of mainstream medicine, pharmaceutical companies, and government health guidance found their suspicions confirmed. The bots amplified outrage in circles already primed to believe it.

The concern isn’t that this created new skeptics. It’s that it reinforced existing ones and gave them something concrete to point to. And here’s the bigger problem: once claims latch onto something as emotionally charged as pregnancy and child health, they spread faster than any fact-check can keep up. Corporate credibility can’t compete with fear when parents are involved.

There were bright spots—brief upticks around myth-busting content and “women supporting women” reassurance showed that empathy and third-party trusted voices can push back. However, those moments were fleeting and only effective when deployed quickly.

Overall, the bot activity didn’t flip mass opinions overnight, but it gave existing skepticism something to hold onto.

The bigger picture

The Tylenol conversation reflects a broader truth about how the internet works today. Information doesn’t spread because it’s accurate. It spreads because it’s emotional, shareable, and repeated quickly. High-emotion narratives move faster than fact-based ones, and bots or coordinated amplification give those narratives even longer life.

More teams are starting to notice this shift. It’s no longer just about tracking what people are saying — it’s understanding who is actually driving the conversation. Separating real human reaction from automated amplification helps organizations see what is genuinely taking hold versus what is being artificially inflated beneath the surface.

Bots themselves aren’t new. What is new is how easy they are to create, deploy, and monetize in an AI-driven internet. Automated networks can now scale faster, mimic human behavior more convincingly, and amplify content for financial or ideological gain with almost no friction. That’s why brands are beginning to see them show up more often — from Cracker Barrel’s logo backlash to the American Eagle campaign conversation and several recent politically charged moments. They’re becoming a structural part of how narratives spread online.

PeakMetrics helps organizations see how conversations propagate, distinguish what is real from what is engineered, and act before amplification turns perception into reality.

Want to learn more? Book a narrative strategy session here.

What Happened

PeakMetrics tracked the conversation across X (formerly Twitter) from August 18–27:

• Overall mentions of Cracker Barrel surged to 1.58M, compared to just 350 the day before the announcement.

• 472,000+ posts directly referenced the new logo or rebrand.

• 423,000+ posts tied the brand to culture-war narratives (“woke,” “anti-woke,” “un-American”).

• 39,763 posts called for boycotts.

• 16,855 posts connected the change to “Epstein files” conspiracies.

Even CEO Julie Felss Masino was pulled in—138,000+ posts criticized her as a “woke DEI CEO.”

Politics and Perception Collide

What makes this story bigger than a logo change is how political lean acts as an accelerant.

Cracker Barrel has long been seen as a brand rooted in Americana and nostalgia, with a customer base that traditionally leans conservative. When the company introduced a minimalist redesign, many customers interpreted it not as a creative refresh but as a signal that the brand was “going woke” or abandoning tradition.

This dynamic isn’t unique. Across industries, PeakMetrics has tracked a continuous pattern:

• If a brand is seen as conservative: moves toward inclusivity or modernization can trigger accusations of “selling out” or embracing progressive politics.

• If a brand is seen as progressive: cutting DEI commitments or shifting messaging can ignite backlash from the left.

The Cracker Barrel controversy underscores how quickly political figures and influencers can seize on these moments. Within hours, voices like President Donald Trump and Charlie Kirk amplified the backlash, while liberal leaders like Governor Gavin Newsom mocked the outrage. What began as a corporate design decision became a proxy battle in the culture wars—reshaping not just reputation but stock price.

The takeaway: branding is never just branding anymore. Companies must understand their perceived political lean and anticipate how changes will be interpreted through that lens.

The Financial Fallout

• Cracker Barrel stock dropped 7% in days, wiping out nearly $100M in market value.

• Shares briefly rose 4.5% after Trump’s comments, showing how political intervention can sway financial markets.

On August 26, Cracker Barrel abandoned the rebrand and reinstated the old logo.

Why It Matters

This wasn’t just about design. It’s part of a larger trend PeakMetrics is tracking: when a brand’s perceived political lean conflicts with its core audience’s values, backlash is swift, and often amplified by politicians and influencers looking to capitalize.

But in today’s environment, social media supercharges that cycle. A single logo change can become a flashpoint in hours, amplified across platforms, reframed through political narratives, and repackaged into memes, boycotts, and calls to action.

Now, with AI making it easier than ever to fabricate content, coordinate campaigns, and distort reality, these narratives don’t just spread fast, they spread at unprecedented scale.

Our Take

For Cracker Barrel, a logo refresh became a reputational crisis. For every other brand, it’s a reminder that modernization efforts will always be judged through the lens of identity, politics, and speed of amplification.

Leaders must anticipate the narratives their choices will trigger and prepare for how they’ll evolve online. With real-time narrative intelligence, organizations can see the warning signs, measure political lean, and act before an issue spirals.

At PeakMetrics, we help teams defend against this new reality—where social media and AI combine to make every brand decision a potential flashpoint. Request a demo.

Just before 1:00 a.m. on July 17th, TikTok user @instaagraace posted a video from a Coldplay concert showing two individuals awkwardly avoiding the Kiss-Cam. They were quickly identified as Astronomer CEO Andy Byron and Chief People Officer Kristin Cabot in what appeared to be an intimate moment. The video took off, amassing over 120 million views.

From there, the incident exploded:

• 848,813 mentions on X

• 31,809 news stories

• Coverage across more than 15 languages

• Estimated reach of 458 million

The Fake Apology Letter

By midday on July 17, a fake apology letter—allegedly from the CEO—was posted by a now-suspended parody account impersonating a CBS News reporter. Though labeled as a parody, the post gained traction and was widely taken as real, quickly spreading across social media and contributing to the narrative amplification:

• 6,600 posts on X alone

• A full day of confusion before it was widely debunked on July 18

• Many posts remained live or were reshared by major accounts before being corrected or removed by July 19

This created a window where a fake statement became the perceived truth, amplified by users, misunderstood by viewers, and even picked up as fact by some outlets.

Virality Timeline

This wasn’t a slow burn. It was a digital flashpoint.

• The first Reddit post appeared at 12:48 a.m. ET on July 17

• The earliest TikToks were posted just after midnight, with Grace’s viral post of the evidence landing at 12:56 a.m. ET

• Mentions of Andy Byron began appearing on X around 4:24 a.m. ET and spiked rapidly after 6:49 a.m., peaking at 10:54 a.m. ET

• The highest moment of narrative virality hit at 11:00 a.m. ET on July 17, with 30,000 posts per hour on X

• A second spike followed around 9:00 p.m. ET on July 18, reaching 25,000 posts per hour

Synthetic Amplification

PeakMetrics’ analysis showed the spread wasn’t entirely organic.

More than 40,000 posts sampled were classified as likely or almost certainly bot-driven, meaning inauthentic accounts were amplifying the narrative alongside genuine users.

This kind of synthetic amplification distorts perception, accelerates narrative spread, and can influence how media outlets frame the story.

Our Take

The Astronomer CEO saga reveals several critical realities about today's information environment:

1. Nothing in public is private anymore.
   As this incident showed, any public behavior can be captured, uploaded, and dissected within minutes. Identifications happen fast, and anonymity rarely lasts beyond the first viral post.
   

2. Misinformation and disinformation are the new normal.
   Communications teams should not be surprised when fake content emerges during a crisis; they should expect it. Accounts may look credible, even when they’re clearly labeled as parody. The fake CBS News post is a clear example of how quickly disinformation can take hold.

“Without an immediate response from the comms team, that fake statement became a perceived source of truth,” PeakMetrics CEO Nick Loui shared with Axios.

“It was clipped, reshared, reframed across platforms, and even picked up by some mainstream news coverage before it was debunked. Once this kind of content takes off and isn't quickly corrected, it becomes incredibly difficult to unwind.”

3. There is growing appetite for anti-corporate content—and CEOs are increasingly targets.
   “That's sort of the bread and butter of clickbait content—laughing at people's poor decisions—and the fact that then it plays into an anti-corporate element just further fanned the flames,” said Molly Dwyer, Director of Insights at PeakMetrics, in an interview with Business Insider.
   “It was sort of a perfect storm of things that are really viral on social media right now, all coming together.”

Bottom Line
The modern internet rewards speed, outrage, and spectacle. For communications teams, that means having a plan not just to monitor what's happening, but to understand it, detect what’s real versus manipulated, and respond fast with clarity and truth.

At PeakMetrics, we help teams do just that—surfacing emerging narratives in real time, flagging manipulated content, identifying bot-driven activity, and equipping you with AI-generated talking points and response plans. Request a demo.

Who Needs Executive Protection?

There are countless reasons to keep a close eye on executive exposure—escalating geopolitical tensions, volatile news cycles, high-stakes business decisions, public appearances, or even a single viral post can instantly shift public perception and spark backlash.

But if you’re unsure where to begin, start here: If their salary is publicly available, they should be protected.

High-profile leaders with visible compensation are often the first to face narrative-driven threats—from doxxing and impersonation to calls for physical harm. While there’s no one-size-fits-all approach, this group is a critical starting point for any team focused on safeguarding executive safety and organizational stability in today’s digital environment.

Why? Because Online Narratives Drive Executive Threats

Every day, social media fuels new narratives. Whether initiated by malign actors, angry customers, or former employees, executives often find themselves at the center of digital firestorms. When a major news event, corporate crisis, or false narrative campaign takes off, public anger often targets high-profile executives—especially those whose compensation is easily accessible.

Let’s explore some recent examples.

Real-World Examples of Executive Backlash

1. UnitedHealth Group CEO Shooting Sparks Industry-Wide Targeting

Following the murder of UnitedHealth’s CEO, PeakMetrics flagged a rapid escalation of online conversations targeting executives across the healthcare industry. The platform identified a surge in posts questioning the justification of high executive salaries amidst rising healthcare costs. This led to direct threats against executives at Humana, Cigna, and others, with users sharing their likenesses, locations, and messages like "watch your back." In response, companies scrambled to remove webpages listing their leadership teams—but it was too late.

Social media users leaned into sarcasm and hostility—amplifying names, photos, and in some cases, home addresses. Once that information is out there, it’s nearly impossible to erase.

Lesson: A crisis for one can quickly become a security risk for all.

2. Delta Plane Crash and CEO Ed Bastian’s Salary Backlash

After a Delta plane crashed in Toronto, PeakMetrics detected a high-risk narrative forming around CEO Ed Bastian’s compensation. Users speculated that, despite the crash, he would still receive his multi-million-dollar bonus, sparking outrage over a perceived lack of accountability. The narrative gained significant traction on social media, fueling distrust toward corporate leadership and amplifying frustration over executive pay disparities.

Lesson: Even a crisis not directly caused by an executive can ignite personal scrutiny and reputational fallout.

3. Target’s DEI Rollback Fuels Salary-Driven Criticism

When Target faced backlash (and some praise) for rolling back its DEI policies, PeakMetrics' platform flagged a growing discussion about CEO Brian Cornell’s salary. His compensation increase of 8.7% the previous year became a focal point, with users alleging that the rollback was a financial move to "put money back into the CEO’s pockets." The platform identified a surge in memes and viral posts, including edited images of Cornell with a clown nose. As these conversations intensified, direct threats of corporate boycotts also surfaced, reinforcing the importance of monitoring online sentiment.

Lesson: Corporate decisions with cultural weight quickly translate into personal attacks on leadership.

4. Disney Layoffs and CEO Bob Iger’s Pay Controversy

Following widespread layoffs at Disney, PeakMetrics flagged an uptick in risk indicators surrounding CEO Bob Iger’s compensation. The platform identified a flood of mentions related to his 30% pay increase to $41.1 million, sparking viral outrage. Employees and customers alike took to social media to vent frustrations, with some openly calling for his resignation and others making disturbingly violent remarks, such as telling Iger to "count his days." This case highlighted how business decisions can quickly evolve into personal threats.

Lesson: In emotionally charged moments, executive compensation becomes more than a talking point—it becomes a trigger. What starts as financial outrage can rapidly escalate into personal, reputational, and physical threats if left unmonitored.

5. State Farm CEO Under Fire During California Wildfires

As State Farm dropped policies for California residents ahead of devastating wildfires, PeakMetrics' platform detected an immediate spike in conversations targeting CEO Jon Farney. His compensation and likeness were widely shared, often in direct comparison to denied fire insurance claims. Some posts criticizing him gained over 20,000 views, fueling public outrage and negative sentiment toward the company.

Lesson: Crises rooted in policy or natural disaster still become personal threats when public perception shifts.

6. Turo CEO Accused of Bankrolling Terrorists

When two Turo-rented vehicles were tied to separate high-profile attacks, online narratives rapidly focused on CEO Andre Haddad—not because of any evidence of wrongdoing, but because of his Lebanese heritage and sexual orientation. Users speculated about his connections to terrorism and whether he was “bankrolling” the incidents.

Lesson: Executives don’t need to make a controversial decision to be targeted—identity alone can spark a firestorm amid crises.

Proactively Managing Executive Risk with Narrative Intelligence

These examples show a consistent pattern: executive salaries and identities are weaponized during moments of crisis. If a company doesn’t proactively track online narratives, it risks allowing these threats to escalate unchecked.

And it’s not just about digital discourse anymore. Shareholders of major publicly traded companies are now pressuring boards to implement robust executive protection strategies.

So, what’s the solution? Narrative intelligence.

Executive protection isn’t just physical anymore—it’s digital. As online threats evolve, organizations need real-time visibility into the narratives shaping executive risk.

PeakMetrics’ narrative intelligence platform helps security teams detect early warning signs, assess threat levels, and respond before risks escalate. From doxxing and impersonation to false narratives and coordinated campaigns, we surface what matters—so your team can act before it becomes a crisis.

Want to know what’s being said about your leadership team online—before it becomes a headline?

Let us show you how narrative intelligence can help. Request an executive narrative scan.

2024 has become a breeding ground for conspiracy theories fueled by viral narratives, political polarization, and the ever-growing amplification of social media. From natural disasters to drone sightings, these stories illustrate how deceptive narratives can shape public perception and spark widespread debate.

Using insights from PeakMetrics, let’s count down some of the year’s most talked-about conspiracy narratives.

7. Baltimore Bridge Collapse: Cyberattack Speculation (March 26)

When a cargo ship struck a support column of a Baltimore bridge on March 26, causing its collapse and the deaths of six construction workers, conspiracy theories immediately followed. Claims included that the ship was hacked by foreign agents or that Covid-era lockdowns had somehow contributed to the disaster. Influencer Andrew Tate falsely suggested the event was the result of a cyberattack, while others speculated about links to immigration and drug trafficking. PeakMetrics tracked over 154,000 X posts related to these narratives, with activity spiking at 49,000 posts on March 26. Despite the spread of these claims, no evidence has supported these conspiracy theories.

6. Boeing Whistleblower Deaths: Silencing Accusations (March–April)

The deaths of two Boeing whistleblowers, John Barnett and Joshua Dean, in 2024 fueled conspiracy theories alleging retaliation and cover-ups. These narratives gained traction in March and April, with terms like “silenced,” “not suicide,” and “murdered” becoming central to online discussions. Since March, there have been 578,000 posts on X about these theories, peaking at 141,000 posts on March 12. The persistent spread of these narratives highlights the public’s appetite for speculation about corporate secrecy and accountability.

5. Kate Middleton Conspiracy: Health and Identity (January–March)

Rumors about Kate Middleton’s health and identity gripped the internet in early 2024. Following an announcement from Kensington Palace in January that the Princess of Wales was recovering from abdominal surgery, online speculation spiraled into claims that she was missing, in a coma, or even replaced by a body double. Nearly 900K posts on X have been around Kate Middleton's health and identity conspiracies since January. Posts spiked on February 26 with 39,000 mentions and peaked again on March 18 with 69,000 posts, coinciding with a video where Middleton revealed she had been diagnosed with cancer. Conspiracy theories persisted through the year, with some questioning the authenticity of her illness in November.

4. Weather Control Conspiracy Theories: Hurricane Milton (October 9)

In October 2024, Hurricane Milton became the center of a storm of conspiracy theories as it approached Florida. Speculation online claimed that the hurricane was geoengineered, with some suggesting it was deliberately created to suppress voter turnout and sway election results. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene fueled the fire, alleging that weather manipulation technologies were at play to influence political outcomes. According to PeakMetrics, over 1.46 million X posts discussed these conspiracies since October 2024, with activity peaking on October 10—the day after Milton made landfall—with 209,000 posts. Experts quickly refuted these claims, emphasizing that there is no scientific evidence to support human control over large-scale weather events.

3. Drone Sightings and Project Blue Beam (November–December)

In November, a surge of mysterious drone sightings across the U.S. East Coast sparked panic and reignited the Project Blue Beam conspiracy, which claims global elites are planning a fake alien invasion. Other theories suggested the drones were scanning for radiation or even represented “Biblically accurate angels.” With over 1.47 million X posts on drone-related conspiracies since November—and a peak of 136,000 posts on December 11—the narrative continues to grow as no explanation for the drones’ origin has been disclosed as of the writing of this piece, fueling ongoing speculation and fear.

2. Trump Assassination Attempt: Second Shooter Theories (July 13)

On July 13, 2024, Donald Trump survived an assassination attempt while speaking at an open-air campaign rally near Butler, Pennsylvania. The incident gave rise to numerous conspiracy theories, with claims ranging from the involvement of a second shooter to accusations that Antifa or even foreign governments like China were behind the attack. Since the incident, over 3.4 million X posts have discussed these theories, with activity peaking on July 14—the day after the attempt—with 509,000 posts. A secondary surge occurred on September 16 with 169,000 posts, as new narratives and claims resurfaced. The persistence of these discussions underscores how conspiracy theories can evolve and reignite.

1. Migrants Eating Pets: Trump’s Debate Comment (September 9)

During the September 9th presidential debate, Donald Trump claimed migrants in Springfield, Ohio, were eating pets, including cats and dogs. This statement sparked a wave of online discourse linking immigrants, particularly those from Haiti, to claims about consuming pets. Since September 1, there were over 3.54 million X posts about this narrative, with discussions surging to 392,000 posts on September 9 following Trump’s remarks. According to PeakMetrics, the narrative reached its peak two days later, on September 11, with 887,000 posts. While the claims were baseless, they highlighted the power of a single statement to ignite widespread speculation and misinformation.

Conspiracy theories in 2024 reflect the continued interplay between major events, harmful narratives, and online amplification. With millions of posts fueling these narratives, the role of platforms like PeakMetrics in tracking and understanding these trends is more critical than ever. By surfacing and analyzing these conversations, organizations can better prepare to counter false or harmful narratives and respond proactively to emerging threats.

The latest news & insights from the PeakMetrics team.

• 2024 Holiday Shopping Trends

• Why It’s Not Just About Data Sources Anymore

• Why Brands Should Shift from Sentiment Analysis to Favorability

Happy New Year from the PeakMetrics team. Thanks for reading!

If you missed our recent webinar, From Insights to Impact: Data-Driven Strategies for Reputation Management, you can now watch it on demand.

This webinar is packed with insights to help your team tackle today’s unpredictable reputational risks.

What You’ll Learn:

• Identify and assess emerging online threats,

• Prioritize between “smoke and fire” to focus on real risks,

• Measure the impact of proactive, reputation-protecting strategies.

Watch the Replay Now

Join PeakMetrics for a FREE webinar, “From Insights to Impact: Data-Driven Strategies for Reputation Management” and discover how to identify emerging online threats, distinguish between “smoke and fire,” and measure the impact of proactive reputation protection. Empower your comms team to transition from a support role to a strategic asset, essential for driving business success.

📅 Date: Wednesday, Nov 20th
⏰ Time: 1:00pm ET
🎙 Moderator: Chandler Wilson, Founder of bridge_ci
🔹 Speakers: Nick Loui, Co-Founder & CEO at PeakMetrics, and Molly Dwyer, Head of Insights at PeakMetrics.

Don’t miss this chance to gain the tools and insights you need to close the communication data gap and enhance brand resilience. Register now. 

1. "Missing 20 Million Votes" Narrative Fuels Election Conspiracy Theory Surge

Following the announcement of the 2024 presidential election results, narratives casting doubt on the vote count began spreading rapidly online. A growing discussion on X claimed that 18-20 million votes were “missing,” with users citing alleged discrepancies in voter turnout compared to 2020. However, as WIRED reported, this gap is simply due to the fact that not all votes had been counted at the time.

The Spread of The Narrative

PeakMetrics found that the number of posts on X surged on the morning of November 6, casting doubt on the legitimacy of the election results and urging Kamala Harris to investigate or demand a recount. By noon, these posts peaked at 94,000 per hour and continued to trend throughout the day. The narrative ranged from hashtags like #donotconcedekamala and phrases like “math ain’t mathing” to specific claims of “missing votes” totaling 18-20 million. This perceived discrepancy between reports of record voter turnout and fewer reported votes compared to 2020—particularly the referenced 18-20 million—began to gain traction among some influential X users, amplifying the narrative further.

As reported by WIRED, the rise of conspiracy theories from left-leaning or anti-Trump accounts, collectively known as BlueAnon, became more prominent earlier this year, especially following the assassination attempt on Trump’s life in July. 

The Early Morning Surge

Posts questioning the election count spiked around 2 a.m. ET, shortly after the election was called for President Trump. By 8 a.m. ET, the number of posts per hour had surged to nearly 32,000, with an unusual lack of decline in activity during typical overnight hours. This continuous increase in posts from 2 a.m. to 7 a.m. ET reflects the intensity of the narrative or may indicate inauthentic or automated posting behavior driving the discussion.

The Right vs. The Left

Although predominantly left-leaning accounts shared language supporting a recount and citing the “missing” votes, some right-leaning influencers—including Dinesh D’Souza and Benny Johnson—also engaged with the narrative. Right-leaning accounts referenced this speculation to question the legitimacy of the 2020 election, asserting that the 2020 vote count was artificially inflated for President Biden and that today’s “missing votes” for Harris prove a larger electoral manipulation in Biden's favor.

As narratives like the “missing votes” theory spread rapidly, online discourse can quickly become a breeding ground for conspiracy theories. Real-time monitoring, as seen with PeakMetrics, is essential in identifying and analyzing these claims early.

2. Pennsylvania Dominates Election Fraud Discourse Among Battleground States on X

On November 5th, PeakMetrics data revealed that election fraud discussions on X overwhelmingly focused on Pennsylvania, far more than any other battleground state.

Throughout the day and into the early hours of November 6th, PeakMetrics identified that a significant majority of Pennsylvania election fraud discussions on X (formerly Twitter) centered on Philadelphia, with 91% of posts mentioning the city compared to just 9% mentioning other Pennsylvania cities and counties. There were 172,945 X posts detected on election fraud, including claims of non-citizens voting, that also mentioned Philadelphia. At the same time, PeakMetrics found 16,251 posts on election fraud, including claims of non-citizens voting, that mentioned other Pennsylvania counties and cities and not Philadelphia. 

These discussions gained momentum early, with substantial activity by 1 am ET on November 5th, as posts from the evening of November 4th had already circulated claims of voter fraud involving non-citizens voting in Philadelphia. The narrative was fueled by a video originally posted by James O’Keefe, which had amassed 3 million views and 23,000 reposts by 9 am ET on November 6th. The video was also shared by @LibsofTikTok  near midnight on November 4th. Philadelphia election fraud posts peaked between 7 am and 9 am ET on November 5th and again from 5 pm to 9 pm ET, driven by posts from former President Trump alleging “massive cheating” in Philadelphia.

Election fraud posts about other Pennsylvania cities and counties—excluding Philadelphia—saw an initial peak from 9 am to 11 am ET, driven by allegations of machine issues in deep-red counties, particularly Cambria County. Throughout Election Day, posts linked to in-person voting delays in these areas continued, with another uptick from 1 am to 2 am ET on November 6th, as Pennsylvania was called for President Trump. Philadelphia-related election fraud posts also spiked at this time, as both Pennsylvania and the national election were called for Trump.

In the two hours following Trump’s posts about “massive cheating” in Philadelphia (5 pm-7 pm), election fraud posts related to Philadelphia surged 368% higher than the two hours prior (3 pm-5 pm). Notably, this surge was specific to Philadelphia, with no corresponding increase in election fraud posts about other Pennsylvania regions.

3. Kamala Harris on SNL vs. Peanut the Squirrel—What Social Media Tells Us About Trending Narratives

Over a busy pre-election weekend, social media attention was divided in surprising ways. PeakMetrics found that while Kamala Harris’s Saturday Night Live (SNL) appearance drove major conversation, an unexpected topic—“Peanut the Squirrel” in the context of the election—rivaled it in engagement on X (formerly Twitter). This highlights how digital audiences balance mainstream and fringe narratives, amplifying discussions from both ends of the spectrum.

Who was Peanut the Squirrel? 

Peanut the Squirrel, a social media favorite known for his playful videos and bond with his caretaker, Mark Longo, was recently euthanized by New York State authorities after being seized over wildlife possession rules. The incident has since sparked political debate, with figures like Elon Musk and Senator JD Vance condemning it as "state overreach."

What the Data Shows: 

Kamala Harris’s SNL performance last Saturday evening generated significant attention. By midnight, posts mentioning Harris on SNL peaked, amassing 455,367 mentions through the weekend. Meanwhile, “Peanut the Squirrel” in the context of the election also sparked widespread discussion, gathering 925,826 posts from Saturday morning through Monday. The Harris SNL posts briefly surpassed Peanut-related posts on Sunday morning but stayed close in volume through Sunday and Monday.

Notably, both of these zeitgeist moments generated more X posts compared to the somewhat past-peak volume of posts about Trump and Biden’s garbage comments, which saw around 285,406 mentions — about 45% less than the number of Kamala SNL posts. This contrast shows how, in the world of social media, audiences often prioritize culturally resonant or unexpected narratives, even alongside major political themes.

What’s surprising is that narratives from right-wing online spaces—like the viral story of Peanut the Squirrel—can rival or even surpass mainstream moments, such as Harris on SNL, in engagement. This underscores the influence of these often-overlooked spaces, which are reshaping the public conversation in ways many miss. For brands and media professionals, it’s a reminder of the importance of monitoring diverse narratives; conversation flows dynamically across both expected and unexpected spaces, with social media fueling real-time shifts in discourse, especially in today’s post-election climate.

PeakMetrics in the News: 

• The New York Times: Featured PeakMetrics’ analysis, noting that “more than 60 percent of posts discussing election fraud on X on Tuesday focused on Pennsylvania,” based on our review of approximately 25,000 posts. These insights were also included in the New York Times Election Night Live Blog.

• WIRED: Highlighted PeakMetrics’ insights debunking the “20 million missing votes” conspiracy trending on X.

• NBC News:  Shared our Pennsylvania analysis in their live election night blog.

• NBC Philadelphia: Ran a dedicated story around election fraud mentions in Pennsylvania, featuring our insights.

• POLITICO: Exclusively covered our findings on right-leaning and left-leaning posts on X ahead of the elections in the Morning Cyber and National Security Daily newsletters. 

• WIRED: Reported on our findings related to "Peanut the Squirrel" in connection with the election.

Siete Foods made headlines this month, as PepsiCo acquired the Texas-based, family-owned brand in a $1.2 billion deal. Austin-based Siete Foods markets itself as a health-conscious Mexican American food company with roots in South Texas, founded by the Garza family in 2014. The company drew a loyal customer base selling grain-free tortilla chips, enchilada sauces, taco seasonings, botana sauces, cookies, beans, and salsas — popular with consumers with food allergies and dietary restrictions. 

As consumer awareness grows of the health risks of ultra-processed foods, many Siete customers were alarmed by the company’s acquisition by Big Food giant, PepsiCo. These concerns were amplified by some right-wing online influencers, as outrage about the acquisition started to veer into conspiracy-laden territory involving chemicals, the food supply, immunity, and corporate power networks. 

With PeakMetrics, companies can detect narrative risks as they emerge around big corporate announcements, decipher particularly risky narratives, and defend against possible conspiracy-laden misinformation related to their brand. 

Our “Detect. Decipher. Defend.” Framework

Detect:

PeakMetrics detected the volume of mentions about the acquisition of Siete Foods by PepsiCo reached 3,551 mentions across news and social media, with peak days on October 2nd-3rd, showing a significant spike in interest and coverage. 

Discussions primarily revolve around the impact of PepsiCo's acquisition strategy, with some concerns that it may affect the quality of Siete Foods' products negatively. This is evident from comments like "Pepsi will ruin the brand" and concerns over sourcing "cheap ingredients." PeakMetrics found that local reporting was more likely to be negative toward the acquisition. For example, the Texas-outlet My San Antonio, noted concerns from the brand’s loyal health-conscious and Mexican-American customer base that the brand would lose its distinctive approach to ingredients and quality.

Decipher:

PeakMetrics narrative intelligence technology distilled several key concerns echoed by consumers online, including:

• Ingredient Quality: A top concern voiced by consumers related to Siete’s grain-free and seed oil-free branding. Users worried that the acquisition by PepsiCo would lead to a compromise on using these types of quality ingredients, such as almond flour and avocado oil. This was a particular concern for users who rely on Siete Foods because of food allergies, including sensitivities to gluten. 

  • The r/Celiac and r/PlantBasedDiet subreddits were one place where these concerns were shared. Users called Siete their “safe food” and wanted to continue monitoring if the gluten-free certification of their products changed following the acquisition. 

• Big Food: Several celebrities and online influencers weighed in on Siete’s acquisition, amplifying concerns about the brand being acquired by “Big Food” giant PepsiCo. Notably, Mike Cernovich and Rob Schneider both posted on X (Twitter) responding negatively to the acquisition, with posts amassing ~200k views. Concerns about Big Food can veer into misinformation-laden territory, as evidenced by Schneider’s repost from an account on “natural immunity.” 

• BlackRock Conspiracy: Traveling further into the realm of misinformation surrounding the acquisition, PeakMetrics uncovered a narrative claiming that Siete’s acquisition by Pepsi was influenced by the giant money manager, BlackRock. BlackRock has cropped up in a wide range of conspiracies in recent years, with Internet users from both the far-left and far-right claiming the company secretly controls the world. The original post spreading this concern came from an account called Think Before You Sleep (@TBYSTweet) — which has 25k followers on X (Twitter). This account shared the same original post that Mike Cernovich and Rob Schneider reacted to, but took this narrative on step further into conspiracy-rich territory by referencing BlackRock.

Defend:

For Siete Foods and PepsiCo, the PeakMetrics platform identified these three angles to counter negative narratives and combat misinformation related to the acquisition. 

• Respond to Quality Concerns: Address the fears about quality decline post-acquisition by reassuring stakeholders about PepsiCo's commitment to maintaining the high standards of Siete Foods, including concerns related to gluten and seed oils for the health-conscious and allergy-sensitive customer base. Highlight PepsiCo's strategic intent to promote healthier snack options, as demonstrated by this acquisition. Consider leveraging key influencers or partners in the allergy and gluten-free communities to attest to the quality of Siete’s ingredients under the PepsiCo brand.

• Market to Key Platforms: Target advertising on platforms like Twitter and Reddit to address misinformation and engage with concerned consumers. Sub-reddits and other micro-communities offer an inroad to Siete’s loyal customer base, including r/Celiac and r/PlantBased Diet. 

• Monitor Misinformation: Keep a close eye on claims related to “Big Food” conspiracy theories impacting the Siete and PepsiCo brands, including the specific claim PepsiCo is owned by Blackrock — a company tied to a vast number of conspiracy theories about corporate governance, anti-Semitism, and shadow power. Monitor the escalation of these conspiracies from right-wing influencers. 

The latest news & insights from the PeakMetrics team. 

• PeakMetrics Launches New AI-Powered Platform to Help Organizations Upgrade Their Risk and Threat Intelligence

• 5 Reasons Why Traditional Media Monitoring Tools Are Outdated

• How to Establish a Best-In-Class Risk Monitoring Process 

Resurgent Summer for Biological and Chemical Weapons Disinformation

Recycled, repackaged, and recirculating — Russian-backed online misinformation and disinformation related to chemical and biological weapons found new life this summer. Although versions of these zombie mis/disinformation falsehoods have been repeatedly fact-checked and debunked, each new circulation of these falsehoods exposes a potentially new audience to these recycled narratives. Particularly in the lead-up to the U.S. presidential election in November, narratives related to chemical/biological weapons have the potential to ignite into a firestorm overnight.

Even in their latest developments, these campaigns largely tread well-worn paths related to three key allegations pushed directly from the Russian government:

• Chemical weapons in Ukraine

• U.S. bioweapons laboratories

• U.S. medical experimentation on Black people

Each of these narratives, previously ignited during the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak in 2020 and Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, reared their heads in new articles and social media posts during summer 2024. In the past month alone, PeakMetrics found approximately 86,000 posts on X (Twitter), in English and Russian, referencing Ukraine and biological/chemical weapons. 

Our “Detect. Decipher. Defend.” Framework

Detect:

The narrative publicized by the Russian government that the U.S. is supplying chemical weapons to Ukraine drove the biggest spike in X (Twitter) posts in the last month, on August 25th. 

Underscoring the recurrent narrative of this narrative, the original Russian news agency article that sparked this surge describes the U.S. as “remains the main supplier” of chemical weapons substances to the Ukrainian military. A post debunking this article, from a Russia watcher, was actually a key driver of the August 25th spike. 

This post was viewed approximately 55,000 times and drew nearly 1,000 reposts. In some cases, this viral post was shared by users advancing the Russian narrative on U.S. chemical weapons that the author was attempting to refute — highlighting the risks that debunking some false narratives may inadvertently amplify them. 

Decipher:

At the same time, PeakMetrics detected a counter-narrative from the Ukrainian side, calling out Western allies for their alleged silence and complicity on Russia’s use of chemical weapons on Ukrainian troops. 

This narrative was sparked by a Kyiv Independent English-language news article, ‘Silent killer’: Russia boosts grinding Donbas advance with chemical warfare. PeakMetrics found that the article was reposted or linked more than 3,500 times on X (Twitter) since its publication on August 30th. A key social media post framing the article in the context of alleged silence from Ukraine’s Western allies was reposted more than 1,000 times and received upwards of 120,000 views. 

Defend:

Weaving together recurring disinformation themes around U.S. “biolabs” and the history of medical exploitation of African-Americans, PeakMetrics detected the resurgence of a narrative alleging the relocation of U.S. bioweapons laboratories from Ukraine to Africa. 

The timing of this narrative’s resurgence appears calculated to build on fears surrounding the World Health Organization declaration of a global health emergency for monkeypox — in response to the resurgence of cases in Africa. 

Back in 2023, a senior Russian government official alleged that the U.S. moved part of its "unfinished" Ukrainian projects researching biological weapons to African nations including Cameroon, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, and Uganda. 

In June 2024, that narrative was recycled by the same Russian senior official, Igor Kirillov, and spread in an article by Russian state-owned RT and by the Russian embassy in South Africa in a post on X (Twitter). Notably, a video of Kirillov making this claim was posted on X (Twitter) by account called @AfricanHub_ and viewed more than 37,000 times. The account, which describes itself as “telling the African stories to the world,” intersperses African interest stories and videos with content that is anti-U.S. and pro-Russian. 

As the monkeypox health emergency evolves, this threatening narrative has the potential to accelerate. 

Bonus: From Conspiracy Theories to Celebrity Endorsements: How Social Media Reacted to the First 2024 Debate

The first 2024 presidential debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris sparked major online discussions on X (formerly Twitter). From fact-checking to conspiracy theories, users quickly weighed in. PeakMetrics analyzed the conversation, highlighting how moderators, conspiracy theories, and celebrity endorsements shaped the broader discussion. Let’s explore the key narratives from the debate.

Moderation & Fact-Checking:

During the debate, from 9:00 PM to 11:00 PM ET, PeakMetrics detected about 5.8 million posts related to the event on X. Among these, approximately 16% of the posts specifically referenced the ABC News debate’s moderation or fact-checking. There were 950,000 posts that highlighted moderators and their active role in enforcing the debate rules, a significant increase compared to the previous debates moderated by CNN. The heightened focus on fact-checking and rule enforcement drew praise from several users, indicating a growing demand for transparency and accountability in these high-stakes political events.

The "Haitians Eating Pets" Conspiracy Theory:

PeakMetrics found that the conspiracy theory, amplified by VP candidate JD Vance, that Haitian migrants were eating pets in Ohio was mentioned in a sustained number of X (Twitter) posts in the lead-up to the debate — hovering between 40,000 and 20,000 posts per hour from September 9th into the hour the debate began on September 10th. 

While this theory gained momentum online in the lead-up to the debate, former President Trump’s reference to the theory during the debate appeared to flip the script and opened the theory to online mockery. The number of posts mentioning the language specifically used by former President Trump to reference this theory during the debate — including “they’re eating the pets” — was 83% higher than the number of posts more specifically describing the conspiracy and mentioning Haitians, immigrants, and migrants. Posts quoting former President Trump were largely mocking his reference to the theory using his own language.

During the debate, there were approximately 121,000 posts referencing the conspiracy theory in the language that had previously gained traction online — mentioning pets and animals being eaten by Haitians, migrants, or immigrants. In response to a question about immigration, former President Trump referenced the theory saying, "They're eating the dogs, the people that came in, they're eating the cats.” During the debate, X (Twitter) posts using Trump’s language — “they’re eating the pets/dogs/cats” — soared to approximately 223,000 posts. 

Taylor Swift Endorsement:

Taylor Swift's endorsement of Kamala Harris added a cultural twist to the political conversation. After Swift endorsed Harris with the phrase “childless cat lady,” posts referencing "childless cat ladies" skyrocketed by 17,000% within the hour following her endorsement. The number of posts jumped from just 300 to over 53,000 between 10:00 PM and 12:00 AM EST. 

Meanwhile, PeakMetrics found the number of X (Twitter) posts mentioning variations of “Swifties for Trump” were on the decline in the lead-up to Taylor Swift’s endorsement of Kamala Harris late on September 10th. Posts peaked on August 19th — when former President Trump posted AI generated images of Taylor Swift and Swifties — falsely suggesting her support for his campaign. Compared to this peak 81,000 posts), the number of posts mentioning “Swifties for Trump” on September 9th were 96% percent lower (2,800 posts). 

In the hour following Taylor Swift’s endorsement of the Harris-Walz campaign post-debate, posts mentioning “Swifties for Kamala/Harris” were ~370% higher than posts mentioning “Swifties for Trump”. 

As the election season unfolds, it’s clear that social media will continue to shape and spread political narratives, and platforms like PeakMetrics will be key in tracking and understanding the impact of these digital conversations on public perception.

The latest news & insights from the PeakMetrics team:

• What is Corporate Intelligence?

• Unraveling the Walz Flag Conspiracy: How Social Media Fueled False Claims and What the Data Shows

• Resurgence of "Texit" Narrative Following Major Corporations' Announced Moves to Texas

• PeakMetrics Awarded $1.85M TACFI Contract by US Air Force to Identify Foreign Malign Influence in the Information Environment

According to the Texas Economic Development & Tourism department, about 250 companies relocated their headquarters to Texas from 2018 to 2024. Elon Musk’s X and SpaceX, Chevron, and financial services firm TIAA were the latest companies to announce their corporate moves to Texas from California in the last month. 

PeakMetrics found that these three corporate announcements drove significant spikes in news coverage and social media posts on Texas’ business environment and appeal to corporations looking to move their U.S. headquarters. While the number of companies relocating to Texas had steadied in the past few years after accelerating in 2020-2021, the sustained level of online discourse since Chevron announced its move in early August may indicate a new acceleration point is just around the bend. 

In surfacing the narratives in the online reaction to these moves, PeakMetrics helps companies pondering such a move defend against the underlying politically-charged issues present in the discussion. 

Our “Detect. Decipher. Defend.” Framework

Detect:

PeakMetrics detected that corporate headquarters relocations to Texas generated significantly elevated news coverage up to a week after the initial announcements, though Chevron’s announcement drove about half the news coverage of Musk’s announcement. 

Notably, Chevron’s announcement generated more buzz on X (Twitter) than in the news. After Chevron’s announcement in August, posts about corporate relocations to Texas spiked to ~88% of the July spike in reaction to Musk’s announcement. PeakMetrics also found that the social media conversation on corporate moves to Texas is once again picking up steam over the past few days, largely driven by reactions to comments from Andy Walz, Chevron's president of Americas products, calling California a “tough place to do business.” 

Decipher:

While originally reported in high-trust outlets such as CBS News and Fox Business, Chevron’s announcement has more recently been amplified by more fringe partisan outlets such as The Daily Caller on August 9th. Companies need to follow these types of narratives to track how their official comments may jump from mainstream to more polarizing news outlets and online spaces. 

PeakMetrics detected a clear distinction in the initial narratives between Musk and Chevron’s decisions to leave California for Texas. 

Chevron’s initial announcement on leaving California was framed around the appeal of Texas’ business-friendly environment, in contrast to Elon Musk’s announcement on moving X/SpaceX in reaction to a new California law concerning the privacy of LGBTQ+ kids. 

Defend:

With these corporate announcements over the past month, Texas may be looking to draw other corporate headquarters by projecting narratives about the state’s business-friendly environment. But what other polarizing narratives have cropped up along these corporate decisions to watch out for? Namely, a resurgence of posts about “Texit” on social media. 

Compared to the day before each announcement, posts mentioning “Texit” or Texas secession rose 82% after Musk’s corporate announcement and 500% after Chevron’s announcement. Other companies eyeing a move to Texas will need to monitor narratives around Texit to avoid embroiling their company in this contentious issue. 

The latest news & insights from the PeakMetrics team. 

1. PeakMetrics Awarded $1.85M TACFI Contract by US Air Force to Identify Foreign Malign Influence in the Information Environment

2. Escalation of Narratives About Transgender Athletes at Paris Olympics

3. Brand Reputation Playbook

4. The Politics of Brat Summer

5. Disinformation Narratives Surge After Biden Endorses Harris for 2024 Election

In the immediate aftermath of the assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump at an election rally in Pennsylvania, a whirlwind of speculation and conspiracy theories took over social media. The attack, which took place amidst a fervent crowd of supporters, has raised critical questions about the motive behind the shooting, the performance of the Secret Service, and even suggestions that the event might have been staged.

"The common theme among conspiracy theories is ultimately a search for explanation," PeakMetrics’ head of insights, Molly Dwyer, shares with ABC News Australia. “When there's an information void like this, people will naturally turn to explanations like conspiracy theories to fill that cognitive gap."

Despite widespread concerns about misinformation in the media, the most prevalent narrative following the assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump was one of thoughts and prayers. Among social media posts across X and Telegram discussing the attack, where a bullet pierced Trump’s ear, posts expressing solidarity, prayers, and encouragement for the former president accounted for 17.15%, according to PeakMetrics’ narrative intelligence. Notably, these supportive messages primarily originated from individuals rather than major news corporations or influencers. 

So, what conspiracy theories rose to the top? 

In the chaotic hours following the assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump, conspiracy theories quickly rose to prominence, accounting for nearly 4% of all posts surrounding the incident. Within the first 17 hours, that number climbed to 12% of all posts, according to PeakMetrics narrative intelligence.

A significant portion (roughly 5%) of these conspiracy posts accused Democrats of adopting rhetoric that instigated the attack. These claims rapidly gained traction among influential voices, including the Kremlin, RT, a pro-police organization, a pro-Russian Telegram account, Rep. Mike Collins, Fox News contributor Joe Concha, and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene. Notably, Rep. Greene re-posted a video created by a fringe Australian conservative blog to emphasize her point, further amplifying the narrative.

Other conspiracy theories included accusations that the Chinese were behind the attempt and claims that the shooter was an Antifa member. Both of these conspiracies were shared by accounts with low follower counts, making up 0.37% and 0.21% of all posts, respectively.

Interestingly, PeakMetrics found that the Antifa claim surged one full day after the shooting, even as some other conspiracy theories began to quiet down.

What about the Secret Service? 

Immediately following the shooting, the reaction to law enforcement and the Secret Service was mixed. Findings from PeakMetrics showed that posts expressing gratitude to law enforcement accounted for 3.35% of the dataset, while posts criticizing the Secret Service for failing to prevent the assassination attempt made up 3.07%. 

In the hours that followed, speculation became rampant about how the assassination attempt on former President Trump could have occurred, with perceived failures of the Secret Service in preventing the shooting fueling conspiracy theories and dominating discussions as more information emerged.

The public is frankly shocked that such a security breach is possible. The improbability of such a failure by the Secret Service and local police has led people to seek alternative explanations online — including conspiracy theories, false narratives, and misinformation.

As mentions of some key conspiracy theories — from ANTIFA to false flag to deep state — began to decline, PeakMetrics observed a ~10% increase in the share of mentions on X (formerly Twitter) criticizing the Secret Service as ineffective.

“For many, it's difficult to believe that such a prestigious organization could fail so miserably. In some ways, conspiracy theories offer a more comfortable explanation than accepting that the organizations tasked with protecting the country can make significant errors,” shares Molly Dwyer. 

Gun Control Narratives Failed to Gain Momentum 

While gun control narratives typically spike following a shooting, Democratic efforts to condemn the violence after the assassination attempt on Trump were largely ineffective on social media. According to data from PeakMetrics, posts condemning the violence comprised only 1.42% of the dataset.

Similarly, posts linking the assassination attempt to the gun control debate in the upcoming election accounted for only 0.88% of the posts. These findings suggest that these narratives did not resonate widely or significantly impact public discourse, reflecting a limited influence of gun control discussions in the immediate aftermath of the attack.

PeakMetrics’ analysis following the assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump underscores the complexity of public reactions and media reporting in the digital age. Despite widespread concerns about misinformation, the predominant response was one of emotional support for Trump, driven primarily by grassroots social media activity. This highlights the varied influence of different narratives and the crucial role of understanding social media dynamics in the context of significant political events.

Methodology

PeakMetrics conducted a comprehensive analysis by randomly sampling 5,144 X and Telegram posts related to the assassination attempt on Trump. The analysis included calculating the total count, percent of posts, total user follower count, and average user follower count for each narrative. This approach allowed for a detailed understanding of the narratives that emerged and their influence on social media platforms. The data was collected from X and Telegram posts made between 1800 EST on July 13 and 0100 EST on July 14.

Bonus Insights: Social Media Analysis of the Reaction to JD Vance’s VP Nomination

On Monday, Trump named Ohio Senator JD Vance as his VP pick. At the announcement peak at 4pm ET on Monday, online chatter on X (Twitter) describing JD Vance as an extremist far outpaced mentions of Vance as a unifying choice with broad appeal. 

• Mentions of Vance as an extremist outpaced mentions of Vance as a unifying choice with broad appeal by 40%.

• JD Vance and abortion comprised a significant share of the online conversation at its peak, about 7% of all Vance mentions. 

  • Vance and abortion mentions rose to ~22,824 posts on X (Twitter). 

• Mentions of Vance and abortion outpaced mentions of Vance and Project 2025, comprising just over 4% of all Vance mentions. 

  • Vance and Project 2025 mentions rose to ~13,213 posts on X (Twitter).

PeakMetrics in the News: 

• The Associated Press’s David Klepper interviews PeakMetrics senior intelligence analyst Paul Bartel following the assassination attempt.

• The New York Times highlights a timeline provided by PeakMetrics on the “Democrats are responsible for Trump’s assassination attempt” narrative.

• The Wall Street Journal reports that in the first 17 hours after the attack, some 12% of posts on X and Telegram discussing the event were conspiracy theories.

• USA Today dedicates an article to PeakMetrics’ findings.

• The Wrap shares a quote from PeakMetrics senior intelligence analyst Paul Bartel.  

• The Telegraph shines a light on the share of social media posts that reference conspiracy theories following the assassination attempt across two articles.

• The Marketplace Tech podcast features an interview with PeakMetrics' head of insights, Molly Dwyer.

De-Banking Christians & Conservatives Narrative

News coverage of the narrative that banks are de-banking Christians and conservatives exploded in mid-April 2024 — as a number of Republican state officials issued a warning to Bank of America over its alleged practices of politicized de-banking targeting conservatives. 

Our “Detect. Decipher. Defend.” Framework

Detect:

PeakMetrics detected that mentions of banks ‘de-banking’ Christians and conservatives had several acceleration points over the past year, including July 2023 and March 2024. 

The narrative began to accelerate online several weeks before reaching a peak in August 2023 and April 2024. These early indicators offer an opportunity to get ahead of major inflection points in the spread of this damaging narrative for U.S. financial institutions. 

Decipher: 

American conservatives appear to have picked up the issue from over the pond. The mentions from July-August 2023 generally relate to the UK government beginning to look into concerns over banks allegedly blacklisting certain customers over their politics — namely former Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage. The narrative began to cross over to American conservatives in Fall 2023 — including a CBN News report on September 18th and an October 16th article from the Christian Post. The issue began to pick up real political steam in late February 2024, when Tennessee and Arizona legislatures introduced bills that would prohibit financial de-banking for political or religious beliefs. 

Defend: 

In March 2024, banks needed to begin preparing to deal with this reputational threat going viral based on the bills introduced in February. The Alliance Defending Freedom took up the issue publicly in March, testifying before Congress and petitioning the SEC. By mid-March, major conservative publications were really picking up coverage of this narrative. A month later, the narrative exploded with the state lawsuits against Bank of America. Other banks mentioned in relation to this narrative, other than BoA, include USAA, Chase, Charles Schwaab, and Wells Fargo.

The Latest News From PeakMetrics: 

• How Narrative Intelligence Helps Comms Professionals Act Faster

• The Importance of Corporate Reputation [And How To Manage It]

• Analyzing the Narratives: Biden vs. Trump at the First 2024 Debate

• Significant Surge in Media Depicting Biden's Age and Competence on X

Iran is amplifying a growing online narrative calling to ban Israel from the Paris 2024 Olympic Games, according to PeakMetrics’ narrative intelligence. The skyrocketing increase in mentions of this narrative — driven by bot-like activity and coupled with Iran’s intentionally misleading amplification of the narrative —  may indicate Iran’s intent to help disrupt or sow discord around the International Olympic Committee’s three-day meeting beginning June 12.

Our “Detect. Decipher. Defend.” Framework

Detect: 

Threats to this year’s Olympics have been more widely covered by Russian actors than by Iran. However, as Iran’s proxy conflict with Israel shifts closer to direct confrontation amid the Gaza conflict, Iran may step up its narrative, cyber, and espionage efforts in Europe in an attempt to disrupt this summer’s Olympic games.

Complementing Microsoft’s recent report on Russian malign influence efforts to disrupt the Olympics, PeakMetrics’s narrative intelligence platform detected indicators that Iran is also amplifying online campaigns to denigrate the Paris 2024 Olympic Games. Specifically, Iranian state media recently amplified the narrative, calling to ban Israel from this summer’s games, just after the narrative exploded on social media over the past two weeks. PeakMetrics also detected bot-like activity behind the increase in this narrative. 

Decipher:

This online narrative, calling to exclude Israel from the games or to boycott Israel’s participation, gained increasing traction on social media in recent months. Using PeakMetric’s narrative intelligence platform, we charted the evolution of this narrative, including Iran’s amplification and the bot-like activity driving up mentions on social media.   

Timeline:

• February 20th, 2024: Boycott, divest, sanctions (BDS) movement, which advocates for economic actions to pressure Israel’s policies on Palestine, launches #BanIsrael campaign.

• April 30th, 2024: AP reports 300 pro-Palestinian protesters demonstrated near the Paris Olympics organizers’ headquarters, calling to limit Israel’s participation in the games, citing the example of forcing Russian athletes to compete under a neutral flag. Demonstrators use signs with graphics from the BDS campaign. 

• May 30th, 2024: Israel’s intelligence service alleges Iran was behind recent attacks on Israeli embassies in Europe, including two incidents in May. The headline of a Jerusalem Post article specifically calls out the threat to the Olympics in the context of these allegations of Iranian terror activity.

  

• June 9th, 2024: Mehr News Agency, a semi-official news agency of the Iranian government, publishes an English-language article on an anti-Israel protest outside Olympic headquarters in Paris on June 7th. The article and video are intentionally misleading in their presentation of the context around the protest, including its size. By publishing this article in English, Iranian media may intend to boost support among English-speaking audiences for the banning Israel from the Olympics.

  • Iranian Media Misrepresents Size of Protest: The thumbnail image in the Iranian news agency’s video does not actually show the June 7th #BanIsrael protest at the Olympic headquarters in Paris. The image was originally published by Turkey’s Anadolu Agency in October 2023 and shows the first pro-Palestinian rally allowed by police in Paris — which drew 15,000 demonstrators. In the video of the June 7th protest, the thumbnail image of mass crowds quickly cuts to closely cropped footage, in an attempt to inflate the crowd size.

  • Iranian Media Targets English Speakers: Mehr News Agency published this article on June 9th, though the protest occurred two days earlier. This latest protest was not as widely reported in English-language media compared to the April 30th protest. Notably, the specific cut of video footage shared by the Iranian news agency closely matched a video of the protest posted by several Arabic-language YouTube channels and Instagram accounts, including several that several that portray Hamas-related imagery and narratives.

Low Follower Accounts Boost Narrative on Social Media

PeakMetrics examined detected indicators of bot-like activity in the 50,000+ mentions of the #BanIsrael narrative on social media over the past three months. 25% of these posts were from accounts with less than 100 followers. 

Bot accounts tend to have lower follower counts compared to authentic accounts. The share of posts from accounts with more than 5,000 followers, typical of larger official or media accounts, was relatively small — just 5%. This discrepancy may explain why this narrative is far less present in the news compared to social media. 

The coordinated inauthentic behavior amplifying online calls to ban Israel from the Olympics raises the likelihood that a state actor, such as Iran, may be involved in boosting this narrative. 

Defend:

Increasing momentum of the #BanIsrael Olympics movement on social media, likely amplified by bots, points to an elevated risk of online and offline protest activity, targeting the Paris Olympics headquarters and International Olympic Committee, escalating in the coming days around the Executive Board’s meeting. 

While reporting on state-backed threats to Paris 2024 has largely focused on Russia, Iran’s amplification of the #BanIsrael Olympics narrative and the significant bot-like activity detected in overall mentions of this narrative, may signal increasing Iranian efforts to disrupt and denigrate this summer’s games. 

The Latest News From PeakMetrics: 

• Navigating Online Reputation Risks: Pfizer's “Pfizergate” Scandal

• Uncovering Narratives Surrounding Iranian President Raisi's Death

• The Ultimate Guide to Narrative Intelligence

• A Better Approach to Reputation Management

Navigating Reputational Risks in the Fast Fashion Industry

As the fast fashion industry comes under increasing public and regulatory scrutiny, PeakMetrics unveils critical insights into emerging narrative threats sparked by the new (April 9, 2024) HBO documentary "Brandy Hellville & the Cult of Fast Fashion."

Our “Detect. Decipher. Defend.” Framework

Detect:

PeakMetrics detected an emerging narrative threat while monitoring online discussions within the fast fashion industry. This threat stemmed from the new release of an HBO documentary exposing Brandy Melville's business practices and the broader dark sides of the fast-fashion industry.

Both news articles and social media mentions highlighted connections between criticisms in the documentary and other fashion brands, indicating potential industry-wide reputational risks.

Decipher:

PeakMetrics decoded two damaging narratives from the discourse surrounding the Brandy Melville documentary:

1. The Brandy Melville brand is fatphobic, racist, and misogynist.

2. The fast fashion industry negatively impacts the environment.

These negative narratives were associated with specific brands.  Journalists and social media users frequently cited Abercrombie & Fitch alongside fatphobic/racist/misogynist narrative—as Abercrombie was the subject of a 2022 documentary on the brand’s exclusionary business practices. Meanwhile,  Shein, H&M, and Zara frequently cropped up as additional examples for the fast fashion environmental costs narrative.

While the fatphobic/racist/misogynist narrative dominated discussions (43%), a smaller share of mentions highlighted the fast fashion environmental costs narrative (28%).

However, the environmental costs narrative was more prevalent on social media than in news coverage.

Defend:

To mitigate the documentary's negative reputational effects, fashion brands can emphasize inclusive sizing ranges, promote body-positive messaging, and feature diverse models and influencers. 

This strategy can contrast other brands with Brandy Melville's "one-size-fits-all" and "skinny white girl" image. Particularly, fast fashion brands should focus on amplifying such messaging to counter the narrative implicating them in the environmental impacts of fast fashion consumption, especially on social media.

Share

Reputation management corner: 

• “Communicators are increasingly conducting crisis drills in anticipation of the next big operational failure, cyberattack, misinformation campaign or labor issue.” (Axios)

• “Building and safeguarding your reputation isn't just a vanity project. It has real tangible effects on your company's value, especially in today’s world where ethics and principles are key drivers in people's decision-making process.” (Forbes)

The latest news & insights from the PeakMetrics team. 

• The Accounts Uncovering Corporate Data Leaks Before They Go Viral

• Managing Brand Reputation & Building Trust 

• The Story of PeakMetrics