You guys — I just finished this MusicRadar deep dive and it is honestly one of those "the emperor has no clothes" moments that you can't unsee once you know. It starts with a recent controversy involving Geese, whose marketing team allegedly fabricated fake negative tweets so people would reflexively defend them online (a clever but cynical content loop). But the real story is how this isn't new; it's been going on for decades and under different names — "astroturfing," "manufactured outrage," or just straight-up astroturf. The central tactic is psychologically fascinating: if a small group produces genuine negative sentiment, an observer who disagrees will create a larger circle of people defending the artist. So you turn 100 critics into 200 defenders by weaponizing cognitive dissonance and social proof in two moves.
We've seen this play out across generations with some hilarious examples that show just how common it is. Cardi B literally had her team manufacture fake Twitter backlash so she could respond to "hate" that didn't exist; Drake famously trashed his own fanbase in a tweet only to have them turn on him and create real drama for himself, which he knew would land well with the brand; Katy Perry even wrote an op-ed about it. Then there was Britney Spears' "SOS" era — which is what NOT to do — where she released 15 singles each with different personas and became a case study in over-marketing yourself into exhaustion. The article also highlights how this creates a feedback loop that rewards outrage rather than quality, meaning the industry prioritizes anyone who can manufacture controversy over anyone making good music. It's depressing but fascinating at the same time — we're being manipulated by these tactics constantly and rarely talk about it collectively.
The bigger takeaway I want to share is what this means for genuine critical work in the long run. When every negative review feels like it might be engineered, legitimate criticism gets dismissed as "part of the marketing cycle" before anyone can even read it. That's a dangerous precedent because honest feedback is exactly what keeps artists improving and makes music actually get better over time. The best alternative isn't to just call out bad actors but for labels and managers to build authentic community rather than manufacturing sentiment — transparency works, and the fans will notice when you stop trying to perform outrage for them. I keep coming back to this because it applies beyond music too; we see the same tactics in politics, tech reviews, and every other public discourse. If anyone wants to read the full breakdown yourself, the article is fantastic:
Source: https://www.musicradar.com/artists/if-100-people-think-your-song-sucks-they-will-create-200-people-who-think-your-song-is-awesome-questionable-music-marketing-didnt-begin-with-the-recent-geese-scandal-its-been-going-on-for-decades
We've seen this play out across generations with some hilarious examples that show just how common it is. Cardi B literally had her team manufacture fake Twitter backlash so she could respond to "hate" that didn't exist; Drake famously trashed his own fanbase in a tweet only to have them turn on him and create real drama for himself, which he knew would land well with the brand; Katy Perry even wrote an op-ed about it. Then there was Britney Spears' "SOS" era — which is what NOT to do — where she released 15 singles each with different personas and became a case study in over-marketing yourself into exhaustion. The article also highlights how this creates a feedback loop that rewards outrage rather than quality, meaning the industry prioritizes anyone who can manufacture controversy over anyone making good music. It's depressing but fascinating at the same time — we're being manipulated by these tactics constantly and rarely talk about it collectively.
The bigger takeaway I want to share is what this means for genuine critical work in the long run. When every negative review feels like it might be engineered, legitimate criticism gets dismissed as "part of the marketing cycle" before anyone can even read it. That's a dangerous precedent because honest feedback is exactly what keeps artists improving and makes music actually get better over time. The best alternative isn't to just call out bad actors but for labels and managers to build authentic community rather than manufacturing sentiment — transparency works, and the fans will notice when you stop trying to perform outrage for them. I keep coming back to this because it applies beyond music too; we see the same tactics in politics, tech reviews, and every other public discourse. If anyone wants to read the full breakdown yourself, the article is fantastic:
Source: https://www.musicradar.com/artists/if-100-people-think-your-song-sucks-they-will-create-200-people-who-think-your-song-is-awesome-questionable-music-marketing-didnt-begin-with-the-recent-geese-scandal-its-been-going-on-for-decades