Controversial advertising has always had the power to hold a mirror up to society. At its best, it can unite us in shared humor or shared outrage, sparking conversations that challenge societal norms and shape our beliefs. At its worst, it polarizes, exposing deep cultural and political divisions. In the world of marketing, the fine line between what’s considered clever and edgy versus what’s deemed offensive is constantly being tested. Brands that consistently provoke public reactions often do so knowingly, using controversy as a marketing strategy.
A prime example of this strategy is the New Zealand-based Hell Pizza, a brand that thrives on pushing boundaries. Earlier this year, the New Zealand Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) published its list of the most complained-about advertisements ever. Hell Pizza’s infamous “Lust condom” mailers took the top spot, while its “Hell Crossed Buns” billboard came in third. Both advertisements garnered significant public backlash, but they also solidified Hell Pizza’s reputation as a brand that courts controversy.
Despite the high volume of complaints, Hell Pizza has largely stayed within the boundaries of advertising regulations. This raises the question: where do we draw the line between acceptable and offensive advertising? And what does the public’s reaction to Hell Pizza’s ads tell us about shifting societal values and the evolving relationship between religious beliefs and advertising standards?
Hell Pizza is no stranger to controversy. Since its inception, the brand has cultivated an image built on provocative and dark humor, often referencing religious themes. For example, the 2023 “Hell Crossed Buns” billboard, which featured a pentagram in the lead-up to Easter, drew 178 complaints. Critics described the use of a Satanic symbol in connection with a Christian holiday as “blasphemous” and “extremely offensive.”
Despite the public outcry, the ASA ruled that the ad fell within acceptable boundaries. According to the authority, the billboard was a “satirical play on commonly recognized religious imagery” and therefore an expression of artistic freedom. No action was taken against Hell Pizza.
This wasn’t an isolated incident. Over the years, Hell Pizza has received 79 ASA rulings between 2005 and 2021, yet only six complaints were fully upheld, and two were partially upheld. Around 40% of the complaints cited religious objections, with many of the complainants identifying as Christian or expressing concern on behalf of a religious audience. These complaints ranged in intensity, with people labeling the advertisements as “grossly offensive,” “discriminatory,” and even “blasphemous.”
However, none of the complaints based on religious objections were upheld by the ASA. Instead, the advertising authority has repeatedly sided with Hell Pizza, acknowledging that the brand’s use of religious puns and imagery aligns with its established identity, and is, by extension, a form of satire. As the ASA noted, Hell Pizza’s ads may push boundaries, but they operate within “the boundaries of acceptable humor and satire in a tolerant society.”
Sensibilities and Advertising
The number of religiously motivated complaints against Hell Pizza raises an interesting question: why have these objections consistently been dismissed by the ASA? And what does this tell us about the evolving cultural landscape in New Zealand?
First, it’s essential to understand the societal context in which these rulings have been made. Over the past two decades, New Zealand has experienced a marked decline in religious affiliation, particularly Christianity. Census data shows that an increasing number of New Zealanders identify as agnostic, atheist, or having no religious beliefs. Moreover, the country is becoming more religiously diverse, with growing communities of non-Christian faiths. This diversification of religious identity has contributed to a broader acceptance of alternative worldviews and a greater tolerance for satire, even when it involves traditionally sensitive topics like religion.
Hell Pizza’s ability to use religious references without facing significant regulatory repercussions can be seen as a reflection of this societal shift. Whereas a decade ago, religiously themed advertisements might have been met with stronger backlash, today’s audiences—and regulators—are more willing to accept provocative humor as long as it stays within the realm of satire and artistic expression.
That said, the ASA has drawn the line when it comes to content that could cause widespread harm or offense beyond satire. Hell Pizza’s 2014 Easter-themed billboard, which featured real rabbit fur to promote its “rabbit pizza,” was criticized for being disrespectful to both religious groups and vegans. Although the ASA acknowledged that the ad might upset children or those sensitive to animal rights, it ruled that the advertisement was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offense, as rabbits are considered pests in New Zealand, and the skins used were sourced from a local meat processor.
The Most Hated Campaign: Hell Pizza’s “Lust” Condom Mailers
While Hell Pizza’s use of religious themes has sparked considerable debate, its most notorious advertisement to date was not religiously motivated. In 2006, the brand launched its “Lust” campaign, which involved mailing 170,000 condoms to households across New Zealand to promote its Lust pizza. The public response was overwhelmingly negative, with the ASA receiving more complaints about this campaign than any other in the country’s history.
The outrage stemmed primarily from concerns about children being exposed to unsolicited condoms in the mail. Many parents voiced their anger, arguing that it was inappropriate for a company to send out such explicit material without warning. While the ASA acknowledged that the message of promoting safe sex had merit, it ultimately upheld the complaints, stating that the campaign was “likely to offend a number of communities.”
What’s notable about the “Lust” campaign is that, unlike many of Hell Pizza’s religiously themed ads, the ASA ruled against the brand. This suggests that while New Zealanders may be willing to accept satire and religious parody in advertising, they draw the line when it comes to sexual content that could be inadvertently accessed by children. In this case, the potential for harm outweighed any artistic or humorous intent.
Controversy as a Marketing Strategy
Hell Pizza’s history of provocative advertising raises an important question: is controversy an effective marketing strategy? For Hell Pizza, the answer appears to be a resounding yes. By consistently courting controversy, the brand has built a reputation as a company that challenges societal norms and sparks public debate. Whether it’s through religious satire, sexual themes, or edgy humor, Hell Pizza has mastered the art of grabbing attention.
The success of this strategy lies in its ability to generate both media coverage and public discussion. Each time Hell Pizza releases a controversial ad, the ensuing debate amplifies the brand’s visibility, drawing in both supporters and detractors. In many cases, the backlash itself becomes part of the brand’s identity, fueling further engagement with its content.
But the question remains: does this kind of marketing strategy have limits? In an increasingly polarized world, where social issues such as race, gender, and environmentalism are hotly debated, the potential for brands to misstep is greater than ever. Hell Pizza has already ventured into this territory with its “Go to Hell Greta” billboards in Stockholm, which took aim at climate activist Greta Thunberg. The campaign sparked outrage among environmentalists and young people but generated significant media coverage nonetheless.
Similarly, Hell Pizza’s decision to introduce a blood-based “to-meat-o” sauce as a vegan alternative, as well as its “AfterLife Pay” option, which allows customers to delay payment until after death, have both been criticized for being in poor taste. Yet, as with its previous campaigns, the brand has leveraged these controversies to its advantage, positioning itself as a disruptor in the fast food industry.
Controversial Advertising
Hell Pizza’s provocative campaigns offer a case study in the evolving relationship between advertising and societal values. While the brand’s use of religious imagery has generated complaints, the ASA’s rulings suggest a growing tolerance for artistic freedom, particularly when it comes to humor and satire. This shift reflects broader changes in New Zealand society, where declining religious affiliation and increasing cultural diversity have created a more permissive environment for controversial content.
However, the fact that Hell Pizza’s most complained-about campaign was related to sexual content rather than religion suggests that there are still boundaries when it comes to what is considered acceptable. Advertisers must navigate a delicate balance between pushing the envelope and respecting community standards, particularly when children are involved.
Looking ahead, the question for advertisers like Hell Pizza is how far they can push the boundaries of acceptability before they alienate their audience. In an era of increasing social polarization, brands that rely on controversy as a marketing strategy may find themselves walking an even finer line between provocation and offense. As societal attitudes continue to evolve, advertisers will need to stay attuned to shifting cultural norms and values to ensure that their campaigns remain effective—and acceptable.
Hell Pizza’s continued success in the face of controversy suggests that, for now, the brand has found the sweet spot. But as its recent campaigns show, the risk of crossing the line is always present. How consumers react to these provocations—and how regulators respond—will be an ongoing conversation in the world of advertising.
