Ultra Violette’s activation of allies ran into a big problem – the truth

I firmly believe stakeholder management, meeting the market where they’re at, and activating allies is critical to crisis management. But with the absoluteness of online information, it is critical to get it right.

When Choice revealed that Ultra Violette’s Lean Screen SPF 50+ returned test results of just 4 and 5, the brand’s immediate response was to dispute the findings publicly. Normally it is a really great strategy to activate and mobilise allies and champions, but in this instance their ecosystem of beauty influencers, bloggers, and TikTok creators activating to amplify their counter-narrative happened without bulletproof information to support it.

The beauty influencer defence network

Ultra Violette’s demographic positioning as a prestige beauty brand gave them access to a powerful ally network. Beauty influencers with significant followings stepped up to defend the brand, sharing annotated critiques of Choice’s testing methodology while promoting Ultra Violette’s claims of systemic issues in sunscreen testing standards.

This looked like textbook stakeholder activation. These weren’t random supporters but credible voices within Ultra Violette’s exact target demographic. Their defence appeared organic, authentic, and strategically sound. The brand had successfully leveraged their ecosystem to meet consumers where they are digitally.

The problem emerged when Ultra Violette’s own additional testing revealed the devastating truth. After commissioning eight different tests from multiple independent laboratories, Lean Screen returned SPF results of 4, 10, 21, 26, 33, 60, 61, and 64. As co-founders Ava Chandler-Matthews and Rebecca Jefferd admitted: “That wasn’t good enough for us, and it isn’t good enough for you.”

The broken contract of advocacy

Here’s the critical failure that every communications professional needs to understand: when you ask influencers to spend their social capital defending your brand, you’re creating an implicit contract that the information you’re providing is bulletproof. Ultra Violette’s advocates weren’t just defending a product. They were putting their own credibility on the line based on information that proved to be fundamentally flawed.

The ripple effects are profound and lasting. Are these influencers likely to defend Ultra Violette again, even if future criticism is unfair or overblown? Will they step in to bat for any other brand they love? Do they now appear either gullible or complicit, undermining their credibility with their own audiences who trusted their product recommendations. The protective layer of goodwill built over years gets depleted rapidly when allies feel misled.

The cancel culture amplification risk

This stakeholder activation failure highlights a dangerous contemporary reality: when brands mobilise their networks with flawed information, they risk feeding into cancel culture dynamics, pack mentality, and online pile-ons that some brands or individuals simply aren’t robust enough to defend against. Ultra Violette’s beauty influencer network didn’t just defend the brand; they actively questioned Choice’s credibility and methodology, creating a coordinated attack on an established consumer advocacy organisation. When the facts later contradicted their defence, these influencers found themselves on the wrong side of a pile-on they had helped create. The same social media dynamics that can protect brands through stakeholder activation can quickly turn destructive when the underlying information proves unreliable. Brands must recognise that activating allies without bulletproof facts doesn’t just risk their own reputation but can expose their supporters to the very cancel culture mechanisms they’re trying to avoid. I have already seen this play out for at least three brands last year who didn’t have the level of brand protection that choice did, each of these businesses closed as a result of the online pile on.

The modern crisis amplification effect

Ultra Violette’s case demonstrates how contemporary crisis dynamics amplify stakeholder activation failures. When beauty influencers defended the brand on Instagram and TikTok, their statements became part of the permanent digital record. When that defence later proved to be based on incorrect information, the damage to their reputation and Ultra Violette’s relationship with them became amplified and enduring.

The brand’s success story as a female-founded Australian company with $15 million in New York private equity investment and positioning in prestige retailers like Sephora made them a bigger target for scrutiny. But it also meant their stakeholder network had more to lose by defending them incorrectly.

Sally Branson

The framework for authentic stakeholder activation

True stakeholder activation in crisis management requires rigorous information verification. Every piece of data shared with advocates must be independently confirmed through comprehensive testing, not preliminary results. This means clear communication about what you know versus what you’re still investigating, and understanding that patience in activation prevents long-term relationship damage.

The most sophisticated crisis management recognises that your stakeholder network is your most valuable long-term asset. Protecting that network sometimes means accepting short-term tactical disadvantages to preserve long-term strategic relationships.

The long-term cost

Ultra Violette’s eventual admission that their product showed “significant” and “atypical” variability in testing demonstrates the importance of getting the facts right before mobilising support. Their clarification that concerns “only relate to the performance of Lean Screen” suggests they learned this lesson, but only after burning through significant stakeholder goodwill.

The question every crisis manager must ask isn’t whether they can activate their stakeholders, but whether they should and whether the information they’re providing is solid enough to stake multiple reputations on. Because in crisis management, authenticity isn’t just about your brand’s response. It’s about ensuring your allies can authentically defend you without compromising their own integrity.

In an era where authentic advocacy is increasingly valuable and rare, brands that burn through their allies with premature activation find themselves facing future crises alone. Ultra Violette’s stakeholder activation failure will likely haunt their crisis management capabilities for years to come, serving as a stark reminder that when you send your champions into battle, they must be armed with verified facts, not defensive talking points.

Related Content

Opinion Ultra Violette's high-risk strategy to hit back at Choice

News 'The sun is not your friend': SICKDOGWOLFMAN launches sunscreen brand