Hi Marketing Wranglers,
Some weeks, the marketing news writes itself. This is one of them. Brands are chasing viral outrage and wondering why trust evaporates. Legacy giants are coasting on old wins while upstarts eat their lunch. And somewhere, competitors are having conversations they probably shouldn't be having.
Let's break down what went wrong, what's shifting, and what it all means for anyone trying to build a brand that lasts.
🚨 In This Week’s Issue
🏦 The OCC’s “Reg Relief” Gamble: The OCC wants to ease up on supervision. The question is; can banks handle the freedom?
🔥 The Outrage Trap: How “ragebait marketing” turned controversy into a growth hack, and why it’s now a compliance nightmare
🍬 When Competitors Talk Too Much: The sugar industry faces antitrust heat after data-sharing allegations
🏦 The OCC's "Reg Relief" Gamble: Less Oversight, More Risk?
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency just announced plans to "reduce regulatory burden for community banks." Sounds great, right? Smaller banks do spend heavily on compliance. But here's the uncomfortable question: could this regulatory pullback create more problems than it solves?
Why Bank Supervision Exists
Think of bank supervision like restaurant health inspections. Regulators are the financial world's health inspectors, making sure everything's safe for public consumption. When banks have issues, examiners typically flag problems early and give time to fix them before things escalate. This partnership keeps the system stable. Banks catch problems before they metastasize, and the public gets stronger, safer institutions.
What Happens When Regulators Look Away
We've seen this movie before. The 2009 financial crisis wasn't just about bad loans. It was about weak supervision that let risky behavior compound until it triggered a global meltdown. People lost homes. Jobs disappeared. The government spent billions on bailouts. The lesson was crystal clear: strong oversight protects everyone.
The Real Cost of "Relief"
The OCC's plan to shift toward "risk-based" supervision sounds efficient, but it's risky. Smaller issues that could be caught and fixed early might now slip through until they become crises. And without regular examinations, there's less incentive for banks to stay sharp on compliance in the first place.
Why Smart Banks Won't Ease Up
State regulators are filling the gap. While federal oversight relaxes, states are expanding their rules. Many have passed new consumer protection laws, added protected classes, and introduced their own Community Reinvestment Acts. Each state has unique requirements, and non-compliance means fines and reputation damage.
Shareholders are paying attention. Compliance failures lead to penalties, lost revenue, and lawsuits. Boards won't hesitate to hold leadership accountable when poor oversight hurts the bottom line.
Customers have long memories. Even without regulatory enforcement, compliance problems show up in customer experience. Discrimination claims, service failures, operational breakdowns? They become PR nightmares fast. Reputational damage is expensive.
The Takeaway
The OCC's rollback might feel like relief, but it's really a shift in responsibility. Banks now own more of their compliance risk with less external accountability. The winners will be institutions that stay proactive, treat compliance as competitive advantage, and remember the goal: safe, sound, trustworthy banking that actually serves people.
Less supervision doesn't mean less risk. It just means less warning when risk becomes crisis.
🔥 The Outrage Trap: Why Ragebait Marketing Is a Dangerous Game
In the attention economy, outrage is currency. From The Ordinary to Skims to American Eagle, marketers are experimenting with "ragebait marketing," where campaigns provoke anger or moral debate online. The strategy works short-term, but experts warn it's a trap that damages brand equity.
The Compliance Reality
Case in point: e.l.f.'s collaboration with comedian Matt Rife became a reputational crisis after consumers flagged his past jokes about domestic violence. In regulated sectors like fintech or healthcare, "edgy" campaigns can quickly escalate into claims of manipulation or consumer harm. Today's compliance isn't just legal fine print, it's cultural fluency. The real marketing win isn't attention. It's trust.
Head on to Marketing Brew for more details.
🍬 When Competitors Talk Too Much: Sugar Giants Face Antitrust Heat
A federal judge just green lit a major antitrust lawsuit against United Sugar and ASR Group (owner of Domino Sugar), alleging they used a broker to share sensitive pricing data and inflate sugar prices by up to 70% between 2019 and 2024.
Other companies like Michigan Sugar and Louis Dreyfus were dismissed, but the ruling sends a clear message: even informal data exchanges can trigger antitrust alarms.
Why This Matters
Information sharing with competitors isn't as innocent as it seems. Coordinating or benchmarking can quickly look like collusion if it affects pricing or market behavior, and the compliance line is razor-thin. What feels like competitive strategy today can become a legal breach tomorrow, especially in industries where pricing discussions are part of market positioning.
Get the full story at Reuters.
🧩 From the Playbook
What’s the Most Overlooked Step in Marketing Reviews?
Spoiler: It’s documentation.
A lot of teams nail the creative and even the compliance checks but forget the boring part; saving proof. Who approved what, when, and why? These details might seem small until an audit (or a tweet) comes back around.
PS: Warrant keeps every version, comment, and approval in one place, so you’ll never have to play “scroll through Slack” again.
💬 Our community is where Marketing, Compliance, and Legal pros trade insights, updates, and real-world lessons.