The overexposing, saturation-boosting Clarendon effect overthrows Sepia as Instagram’s favorite filter. That year, the popular social media site experienced more changes than in the prior five. The platform celebrated hitting the one-million-active-advertisers milestone, and Selena Gomez still held the title of Most Followers Ever with over 130 million fans.
But the most notable difference about the salad days of Instagram was how confidently—and frequently—one posted to the grid. And if there was one image you were sure to see, it was of a thin brunette wearing a red one-piece bathing suit.
The infamous red bathing suit post.
If you posted this photo, clothing retail startup Sunny Co. would send you a free swimsuit, save the $13 handling charges. The idea erupted. When the company posted this concept of exchanging hashtags and digital space for “free” goods, it had 7,000 followers. Overnight, it hit 750,000.
Reception of the viral post was mixed. Some deemed it a scam while others praised the overnight success . The ethics of manufacturing clothing so cheaply that it can be produced and shipped for $13 and still be profitable created a marketing “gray area,” per Vaxa Digital. Sunny Co. ultimately issued a statement of being unable to fulfill its promotional obligations as it simply didn’t have enough “Pamela” pieces to meet the demand. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced it would crack down on the unethical use of social media as a platform for advertisements.
But one thing was certain: it was a data goldmine that many have tried, and few have succeeded in pulling off.
Sunny Co. may have been the lab rat for the resulting lesson to be learned—that is, don’t bite off more than you can chew for the sake of a viral moment —but it doesn’t seem to be resonating. Reese Witherspoon did not learn this lesson in 2020 when her label Draper James offered free dresses to teachers, naïve to the resulting class action lawsuit alleging illegal lottery/sweepstakes and fraudulent marketing. For what it’s worth, Witherspoon filed two motions to dismiss before the plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal.
On July 25, the footwear-focused brand partook in a TikTok giveaway trend gaining speed with smaller creators. The concept is that if you comment on the video and no one “likes” that comment, you will be given a free PR package. Upon the July 28 closing date of said giveaway, entrant Alana Schreiber was—for all intents and purposes—a winner, as her comment received no engagement. But when she went to Steve Madden’s page to confirm, the contest and rules video were taken down. Steve Madden issued an apology on Aug. 1 for underestimating the popularity and then turned off comments.
While Sourcing Journal could not confirm the details of the now-removed videos, data suggests that the giveaway post had over 60,000 comments. Steve Madden allegedly selected 350 winners from those comments, though it was allegedly never disclosed that the giveaway would be capped. Plus, how Steve Madden selected those 350 accounts (a generator? An Excel sheet?) is unclear.
“All [Steve Madden] had to do was say, ‘we will pick X amount of winners from the comments with no likes,” an account by the name PeppMeastro commented on a video posted by Sarcasm Generator summarizing the situation.
Were lottery laws violated? Shouldn’t a huge corporation (on July 31, the firm reported revenue rose 18 percent in the second quarter to over $500 million; market valuation is $3 billion) have a firmer grasp on the legal ramifications of deceptive marketing ?
While many are making light of the situation, some are seriously upset.
An Instagram group chat of about a dozen hopefuls discuss “how robbed they are” and share evidence of Steve Madden’s wrongdoings. One member of the group allegedly emailed chairman and chief executive officer Edward Rosenfeld directly and was given a 25 percent off discount code. A few other members had similar experiences, receiving coupons after alerting the brand of the situation.
While the “scammed by Steve Madden” coalition is, of course, upset about not receiving free swag, the core of the problem is the principle .
“I want the PR, but at this point, it’s the principal [of] not having solid rules, then making them up on the spot,” a young, self-proclaimed “Disney person” told Sourcing Journal. “It’s just so unorganized and disappointing to the people who won and thought they were getting things.”
For one Michigan State University student, the swag would have been sweet. But the apology was “tone-deaf.” She took her grievances to the Better Business Bureau , filing a review—not a complaint—on Aug. 1, calling out the brand for bad behavior .
“They put on a PR giveaway recently and said that anyone with no likes on their comment will get a free PR. In the *** video they said anyone not mentioning a cap on the number whatsoever. They proceeded to give only about 350 away, blaming TikTok ,” the review reads. “They told us to take screenshots just in case they miss our comment but won’t even entertain us with that notion now. Technology issues happen but the way you go about said issue reflects on the brand. They then proceeded to delete their highly tone deaf explanation video and every video about the PR giveaway. This reflects badly on the company and brand altogether.”
When the student reached out to “report an issue” to Steve Madden directly via a nondescript, general inquiries email account on Aug. 6, she was promptly—as in, less than 30 minutes after sending the email—informed by “Cody” that “unfortunately, the giveaway has closed,” but the brand “apologize[s] for the inconvenience and appreciate your participation.”
However, Julia Haley, the brand’s senior social media manager, contacted her on Aug. 7.
“We received your complaint via the Better Business Bureau and would love to resolve this issue and send you the PR you were promised,” reads Haley’s email. “If interested, could you please reply all with your full name, mailing address, and shoe size? Once we receive your information, we will ship this out and send over tracking. We appreciate your patience and thank you for reaching out.”
The Midwestern fan received a pair of Hadyn sandals on Aug. 10. The $60 footwear was a size and a half bigger than requested.
Some of those feeling scammed are turning the situation into an education—learning the same lesson Millennials did back in 2017.
“I want the PR, but I’ve also been using this experience as a way to learn more about sweepstakes laws in the United States,” Andi Hagen said. She filed a report with the FTC and was prepared to send a demand letter on Aug. 6 but decided against it when she received an email confirming she’d be given the goods.
“A demand letter now won’t do anything [but] piss them off,” Hagen said.
While the FTC was unable to speak specifically about Steve Madden, the bipartisan federal agency did provide some insights into the legalese of social media giveaways in general.
“Speaking generally and not about any specific company, companies need to provide clear and conspicuous information about the terms and conditions of the contest or sweepstakes ,” a spokesperson for the FTC told Sourcing Journal. “If you have to buy to enter the contest or sweepstakes or to increase your chances of winning, it’s a scam .”
KickoffLabs, a platform dedicated to helping users create promotional campaigns, said that federal anti-gambling laws apply to any giveaway or contest, especially those held on social media. While terms vary state by state, the general consensus is that any contest or sweepstakes must declare the odds of winning, the date the winner will be selected and other key details for transparency.
The only documentation of sweepstakes or giveaway rules on Steve Madden’s website that Sourcing Journal successfully located refers to “Maddenwood,” a giveaway held in 2022. The rules stipulate that entrants are to like, comment and tag a friend on Steve Madden’s Oct. 10 Instagram post to be entered into the sweepstakes. The eligibility rules outline when the random drawing will be conducted, but that’s about it.
Steve Madden did not respond to Sourcing Journal’s request for comment.
Get updates delivered to you daily. Free and customizable.
It’s essential to note our commitment to transparency:
Our Terms of Use acknowledge that our services may not always be error-free, and our Community Standards emphasize our discretion in enforcing policies. As a platform hosting over 100,000 pieces of content published daily, we cannot pre-vet content, but we strive to foster a dynamic environment for free expression and robust discourse through safety guardrails of human and AI moderation.
Most Popular
Comments / 0