What happened — the controversial Black Friday email & apology
- The brand is xSuit, a menswear company that offers “functional luxury” suits. (People.com)
- On November 26, 2025 (Black Friday), xSuit sent a marketing email to customers promoting a 45 %‑off suit deal, with a subject line that read: “Grow the f‑‑‑ up ”. (AOL)
- The body of the email reportedly did not soften or explain the crude subject line — it directly pushed the sale. This tone quickly triggered backlash from customers and the wider public. (AOL)
- Later the same day (or evening), xSuit’s founder & CEO, Maximilien Perez — issued a follow‑up email, apologizing for the message. He wrote: “The subject line was unprofessional, disrespectful, and completely at odds with who we are.” He added that xSuit was built “on a promise to be confident without being arrogant,” and the crude message was “not something designed to shock or offend in the name of getting noticed.” (People.com)
- In the apology, Perez also said, “You deserve better… not something designed to shock or offend.” He accepted responsibility — though he did not explain exactly how the initial email got approved, or who was individually responsible. (Yahoo)
Public & Media Reaction — Criticism, Concern, Mixed Views
Backlash & Critique
- The crude phrasing — “Grow the f‑‑‑ up” — struck many as unprofessional, disrespectful, and tone‑deaf for a brand offering premium menswear. (AOL)
- Several consumers, media outlets and observers criticised the campaign as an example of shock‑marketing gone too far — prioritizing virality or attention over brand integrity. (AOL)
- Some said the stunt seemed misaligned with the brand’s stated values — especially “confidence without arrogance.” The apology letter echoed that contradiction. (AOL)
Questions & Skepticism
- Observers noted that xSuit’s apology did not identify who approved or wrote the original email, nor did it explain whether this was a misguided marketing decision or a rogue employee/stunt. That lack of transparency drew skepticism. (Yahoo)
- Some commentators warned that “edgy” marketing stunts — especially around sensitive cultural norms — can backfire, damaging trust and alienating customers. The xSuit case was used as a cautionary example. (New York Post)
The Apology’s Reception
- Many accepted Perez’s apology as the right first step. In his note, he explicitly acknowledged the brand’s misstep and committed to doing better — which some brand‑watchers noted as a minimal necessary response to contain reputational damage. (People.com)
- Others insisted that words — apology included — must be followed by tangible change (review of marketing process, clearer oversight, tone guidelines) before trust can be restored. Several said this incident underscored the risk of “shock‑first, ask‑later” marketing, especially for apparel/consumer‑facing brands. (New York Post)
What This Illustrates — Lessons & Risks for Brands & Marketers
From the xSuit incident, some broader lessons emerge about brand marketing, tone, and risk.
- Shock‑value marketing is high‑risk: The attempt to stand out with bold language (“Grow the f‑‑‑ up”) might grab attention — but it can also backfire, especially when it crosses a line viewers deem disrespectful or unprofessional.
- Brand identity / values must stay consistent: If a brand positions itself as “confident but not arrogant,” using crude or aggressive messaging undermines that identity — which can erode trust.
- Transparency matters after a mistake: The apology was essential — but when a brand doesn’t clarify how the error happened (human error? rogue marketing? stunt?), it undercuts the seriousness of the mea culpa.
- Audience segmentation & respect are crucial: Marketing to, say, younger men or edgy demographics doesn’t give license to disregard decency or professionalism. What one group finds edgy, another sees as offensive.
- Quick apology can limit damage — but real work must follow: A public apology helps halt some of the backlash, but recovery often requires structural changes (review of marketing approvals, tone guidelines, internal oversight).
- Here’s a more in‑depth look — a mini “case‑study + commentary” overview — of the controversy surrounding xSuit’s Black Friday promotional email, the public apology by its CEO, and what this incident (plus other similar ones) tells us about brand‑marketing risks today.
What happened — the xSuit incident (case details)
- On November 26, 2025, xSuit sent a Black Friday marketing email to customers with the subject line: “Grow the f‑‑‑ up ” — a crude, provocative message intended to promote a 45%‑off suit sale. (AOL)
- The body of the email did not soften or contextualize the rude subject line; it simply promoted the sale. (AOL)
- The subject line sparked immediate backlash: many customers and observers found it unprofessional, disrespectful, tone‑deaf — especially given xSuit’s positioning as a men’s “functional luxury” clothing brand. (People.com)
- Later that same day, xSuit’s founder and CEO, Maximilien Perez, sent a follow‑up apology email. In it he wrote the subject line was “unprofessional, disrespectful, and completely at odds with who we are.” He committed to doing better, acknowledging the attempt to be “edgy” was misguided, and said “you deserve better … not something designed to shock or offend in the name of getting noticed.” (Yahoo News UK)
- Notably, the apology did not explain how or why the original email was approved, who wrote it, or what internal processes failed to catch it. This lack of transparency arguably undermined confidence in the sincerity of the mea culpa. (AOL)
What the Reaction & Broader Commentary Reveal — Implications & Risks
What Went Wrong — Why Many Viewed the Campaign as a Mistake
- The use of profanity/shock‑marketing for a mid-market menswear brand clashed with expected norms of professionalism and respect. For many customers, the “grow the f‑‑‑ up” message felt harassing or demeaning rather than clever or provocative.
- The decision to not contextualize or soften the shock value — instead launching a crude subject line straight at customers — increased the risk. Marketing that relies on “edginess” often walks a fine line; without nuance, it becomes offensive rather than attention‑grabbing.
- The rapid backlash suggests that modern consumers are quite sensitive to tone, respect, and brand values — and will react quickly when companies cross perceived boundaries.
- The apology helped mitigate some damage — but by failing to explain the internal lapse, the brand left open questions about organizational oversight, accountability, and whether this was a one‑time error or systemic problem.
What This Case Illustrates — The Broader Risks for Brands & Marketers
- Shock‑first marketing is very risky. As shown by xSuit (and earlier controversies with other brands), attempts to be edgy or provocative to stand out can backfire — alienating customers, damaging brand reputation, and requiring damage control. Indeed, many past brand controversies (some more serious than xSuit’s) have arisen from tone‑deaf ads or marketing stunts. (Agility PR Solutions)
- Brand identity must remain consistent. If a brand markets itself as offering “functional luxury” or “modern sophistication,” a crude or amateurish tone contradicts that image and undermines brand credibility.
- Transparency and accountability matter — after a misstep, a credible apology should ideally come with clarity: what went wrong, who approved it, what internal steps will prevent recurrence. Without that, trust recovery becomes difficult.
- Consumers hold brands to social and cultural standards — even for promotions. What was once dismissed as “edgy marketing” may now be judged as disrespectful, tone‑deaf, immature or unprofessional.
Comparable Cases — When Similar Mistakes Have Led to Deeper Fallout
To better contextualize xSuit’s incident, here are some relevant past examples:
- Pepsi’s 2017 “protest ad” featuring a high‑profile celebrity (intended to convey unity) backfired badly — critics said it trivialized serious societal issues. Pepsi pulled the ad within 24 hours and issued an apology. The fiasco is now widely cited as a cautionary tale in ad/PR design. (Agility PR Solutions)
- H&M had a major public relations crisis in 2018 after an ad featuring a Black child in a hoodie labeled “Coolest Monkey in the Jungle” — which sparked widespread accusations of racism and insensitivity. The brand pulled the ad and apologized, but the damage lingered. (Agility PR Solutions)
- Balenciaga in 2022 faced massive backlash over a controversial ad campaign — and its response involved multiple apologies, public statements, and eventually legal action against the production company responsible. This shows that when a campaign goes very wrong, recovery can require deep reckoning and structural change. (Yahoo Style)
These examples highlight that — whether due to misjudged tone, cultural insensitivity or poorly planned “edge” — marketing missteps can lead to long‑lasting reputational damage.
What Observers & Analysts are Saying — Key Takeaways & Commentary
- Many media and PR‑industry commentators use the xSuit incident to warn that “shock marketing” is no longer a harmless gamble. In an age of rapid social media reaction, companies risk losing far more than a sale. Instead of generating buzz, they risk brand damage.
- For fashion and retail brands: tone, context, and empathy matter much more than novelty or edginess — especially when marketing to broad/demographic‑diverse audiences.
- The apology, while necessary, isn’t enough by itself: real accountability requires internal audit of marketing approvals, better governance, perhaps external review or pre‑send audits for sensitive or provocative content.
- Some marketing‑experts argue this incident reflects a larger shift: consumers and the public are less tolerant than before of “aggressive sales language.” As disposable income, social values, and awareness evolve, marketing needs to lean more into respect, authenticity, and value — not shock value.
My View: Why xSuit’s Mistake — and Apology — Should Serve as a Learning Moment (for Any Brand)
I think xSuit’s fiasco, while perhaps on the “mild” end of marketing controversies, serves as a useful case study. It demonstrates clearly:
- How easy it is for marketing goals (drive sales) to overpower brand values or common sense.
- That “edgy” or “provocative” marketing needs to be handled carefully — with empathy for how messages land with real people, not just as abstract “brand voice”.
- That recovery from such missteps demands more than words: transparency, structural safeguards, and willingness to rebuild trust.
- And finally — that in 2025, even non‑luxury or mid‑market brands must treat tone, culture, and customer respect as seriously as price and product quality.