SoFire’s Hot Campaigns: The e.l.f. Cosmetics Matt Rife Campaign is a Lesson in PR Crisis Management

Welcome back to SoFire’s Hot Campaigns, where we’ll be diving into the hottest campaigns of the week. However, hot doesn’t always mean good, and in this case, we’re looking at the e.l.f. Matt Rife campaign PR nightmare.

On the 11th August, the popular budget beauty brand unveiled a new ad featuring American comedian Matt Rife and drag queen Heidi N Closet, cast as satirical lawyers in a spoof of 1990s-era legal ads. Set in the fictional “Law Offices of e.l.f.ino & Schmarnes,” a reference to the US law firm Cellino & Barnes, the video plays on the concept of “beauty attorneys” fighting for access to affordable cosmetics.

“I know a thing or two about red flags. And pricey makeup? You deserve better than that,” Rife said in the advert, before signing off with a call to action to ring “1-855-COLD-HARD-LASH.”

However, the light-hearted tone quickly soured as online audiences questioned the casting of Rife, a comedian who has been repeatedly criticised, particularly by women, for controversial jokes about domestic violence and other sexist remarks.

Who is Matt Rife?

Forbes ranked comedian Matt Rife as one of the Top 10 Content Creators of 2025: he made $50 million dollars from his Netflix specials and was widely successful on social media. 

Many have criticised him due to a joke that didn’t quite land in his Netflix 2023 special, Natural Selection. However, he told US Magazine that he had no regrets about the joke at all.

“It’s comedy. Sometimes you don’t hit the mark. Plenty of people think I did,” he had explained. “Therefore, it’s not a failure.”

Rife later insisted in another interview, “It’s inevitable [people will be offended] with almost any comedian. We’re in the business of making people happy, but I gotta be me.”

e.l.f.’s apology didn’t quite hit the mark

After the campaign went live, e.l.f. faced some serious backlash from Matt Rife critics. The company apologised, claiming that they had “missed the mark” with their campaign. Comments ranged from “total lack of awareness” to “how was this approved in the first place?” But the main concern customers have is why the ad is still live on their social media.

“1 in 4 women experience DV in their lifetime. Your consumer base is majorly women. Put your money where your mouth is and donate to DV organizations bc we’re not forgetting this one,” one user wrote in a comment with nearly 8,000 likes.

Is the company #cancelled?

Teal Minisofer, Global Public Relations Director at Zerotrillion, thinks that the days of cancel culture are far from over. “Whether we’re ready for cancel culture to end or not, it’s still very much alive among younger audiences,” Minisofer says. “The misstep with the e.l.f. campaign wasn’t just casting Matt Rife, it was failing to anticipate the brand-fit risk in an era where past controversies surface in seconds.”

Adrianne Allen, Founder of IPY Agency and Crisis Strategist, believes that e.l.f.’s apology lost its credibility after it made the crucial mistake of keeping the video up.

“The brand said the campaign ‘missed the mark’ and announced the ‘e.l.f.ino & Schmarnes’ activation was closing. These were reasonable first steps that acknowledge harm without litigating intent. Unfortunately, credibility slipped because the video stayed live after the apology. Issuing ‘we hear you’ while the content remains up reads like optics over action.”

How can brands avoid a PR crisis like e.l.f. cosmetics?

Minisofer and Allen had some important tips to share.

Allen recommends running an “audience harm unit” before signing a talent. List their top three past controversies, the communities impacted, and the brand equities at risk. If any conflict hits your core user values, walk away. 

Considering that e.l.f. is primarily aimed at women, the campaign seems like it just completely missed the mark.

“Most importantly, crisis-proof your apology: act, then speak,” she warns. “Takedown or archive the asset, outline donations/partnerships with survivor-support orgs, publish your talent-vetting updates, and set dates you’ll report back. You need to make sure your audience knows you’re doing the work, that you understand what happened, and that you see and hear them.”

Her quick “if I were advising e.l.f. today” plan was clear:

• Remove or clearly label/archive the ad; publish a short ‘here’s what we changed’ post.
• Commit funds and pro-bono support to domestic-violence organizations for a defined period; co-create safety/education content.
• Publish a new Talent Risk Policy (deal clauses, red-flag review board, stakeholder check).
• Put diverse customer councils into pre-flight testing for celebrity/influencer work.
• Share a 60-day follow-up with outcomes (donations, policy, council in place).

Minisofer echoes the same strategy: “Strong crisis communications starts before launch: through scenario-planning and vetting talent the same way you’d stress-test a supply chain. e.l.f.’s quick apology showed they were listening, but the bigger lesson is clear: influencer reach means nothing without alignment to brand values.”

SoFire's flame rating: 🔥🔥 /5

This campaign gets two flames out of five from me. Unfortunately, whether you found the joke offensive or not, Matt Rife just seemed like the worst possible collaboration partner for a company selling to women. A female beauty influencer would have been much better suited to an ad about rising beauty costs - especially since I'm pretty sure Matt Rife isn't even using e.l.f. products.

Their apology is a start, however it's clear the public opinion still hasn't turned. Keeping the video up has definitely rubbed people the wrong way, and the consequences of this could be devastating for e.l.f.