Kelly Clarkson, a curiosity shop, and an animatronic bird have broken the internet, and everyone’s taking sides. Was Clarkson wrong for putting a small business on blast, or was a small business wrong for being rude to Clarkson? My question: Why bother taking sides, when there’s free publicity to be had?. Stay with me here.
What happened?
For the blissfully offline, here’s what went down: on Saturday, Kelly Clarkson went to check out a Brooklyn-based curiosity shop called Art of Play. She was hoping to make a couple big purchases, but interactions with store employees made her reconsider. And she let her millions of X followers know it.
Clarkson’s post went mega viral: 11,000 comments, 46 million views, and even coverage from major news networks. Naturally, the store responded on Instagram, saying that Clarkson had attempted to purchase a US$15,000 animatronic bird named Molly. (Celebrities: they’re just like us!) Except that Molly actually wasn’t for sale – or so the store claimed.
But Clarkson hit back: “So you’re not only rude, you’re also a liar. Got it ✅.” She denied Art of Play’s version of events, sharing a photo of the visible price tag next to Molly. Art of Play responded again, posting that although Molly is not for sale, she has a US$15,000 doppelganger in Seattle. The post went on: “We also offered to show [Clarkson] a different singing bird automaton, made by a traditional clockmaking shop in Germany, that she could’ve taken home with her that day.” How many high-end animatronic birds does one store need?
By Tuesday, Art of Play co-owner Adam Rubin was brave enough to face journalists. According to New York Magazine, Rubin described the situation as “an insane misunderstanding” and claimed that “Kelly Clarkson has put us in danger.”
Then on Wednesday, journalist Pablo Torre released the security cam footage from Clarkson’s visit to the store – which, honestly, didn’t reveal much, seeing as there was no audio. But many internet users quickly spotted that Clarkson placed items back on shelves in their correct spots before leaving the store, perhaps a positive indication of her character.
As of writing, we haven't heard from Clarkson again, but it feels like the entire internet has an opinion about whose side we should take.
So, whose side should we take?
Some internet users have taken the position that celebrities should never, ever publicly call out small businesses, claiming the fallout will always be disproportionate to whatever happened in the first place. This more or less lines up with how Rubin described his experience: “[Trolls are] calling. They’re emailing. They’re leaving reviews on every platform, they’re review-bombing, they’re attacking anyone who mentions us on social media. They’re shouting, they’re screaming..”
Others have defended Clarkson’s character (see, she put store items back!), or criticized Art of Play’s inconsistent and relatively unapologetic social media responses. One Instagram comment on Art of Play’s post reads, “There's no way you ONLY told her it wasn't for sale and she left with that impression.” The comment garnered more than 7,000 likes.
And many of us are just here for the memes.
We know the bird's in there, somewhere.
Getty Images
No, seriously, whose side should we take?
The real answer to that question is that there’s no need to take sides – not when Art of Play actually benefits from the situation.
I don’t mean to minimize the harassment Rubin has faced. If there is a 'correct' side to be on, it’s definitely not the side of internet trolls threatening a small business. This, I hope, is obvious. But, as my colleague Shazia Khan wrote about in a recent Margin newsletter, viral rage is perhaps the most valuable kind of marketing in the digital age. Nothing gains traction online like a story that makes people mad.
Wednesday, four days after the X post that started it all, NBC reporter Chloe Melas went to check out Art of Play. “I’ve been in front of the store for hours today, and it has been packed,” she said. She added that, while some patrons lived in the area and came out to support the store, others visited from out of town after following the feud online, wanting to see Molly for themselves. (The price of Molly’s secret twin has been upped to US$15,000,000; I’m guessing Art of Play has gotten some lofty offers.)
I’m not saying that this is all some big, elaborate PR stunt, that Kelly Clarkson and Adam Rubin giggling and eating popcorn together as the internet descends into chaos. I am saying that, even if this feud is entirely genuine, it’s more valuable advertising for the shop than a billboard in Times Square.
Rage bait can, of course, backfire as a marketing tactic, and for obvious reasons: people actually don’t like when brands intentionally make them mad. But with Art of Play, the store didn’t actually set the bait, so the surprise publicity isn't seen as a stunt (so far, at least). The details are still so fuzzy, so a boycott seems unlikely; meanwhile, tons of new customers are flocking to the store to see what’s up. Rage bait marketing is as contemporary as it gets, but a good old celebrity feud feels charmingly nostalgic – reminiscent of an earlier era of the internet, before people realized that their Tweets would follow them forever.
I imagine the vibes are probably pretty weird right now at the Art of Play store. But, in this case at least, the old adage applies: any press is good press. Especially this press. It may not feel good to have Kelly Clarkson call you “rude” and “also a liar,” but it’s honestly the best marketing money can’t buy.
