A recent Nutter Butter campaign on TikTok is generating buzz across social media. People perceive it as a bold, unconventional approach to marketing, using AI-generated content and surreal humor. The quirky visuals and cryptic messaging have triggered widespread discussion, revealing cultural and generational shifts in how consumers engage with brands.

MIG Reports delves into the public reactions, unpacking the different sentiments expressed and what they reflect about broader trends in marketing, branding, and societal expectations.

1/5 Attention is everything.

Nutter Butter’s bizarre videos cut through the noise. Safe and boring?

That gets ignored.

Weird wins. 🔥 pic.twitter.com/NXAiSynMGw

— Martin O'Leary (@Martinoleary) October 8, 2024

American Reactions

Many are reacting to Nutter Butter’s campaign with amusement and appreciation for its creativity. Although there is skepticism and criticism over its perceived inauthenticity.

Positive reactions, driven largely by younger audiences, reflect a growing appetite for brands that embrace humor and relatability. Older demographics are more likely to question the effectiveness of such an unconventional approach.

Positive Reactions

• Around half of social media reactions express their enjoyment of the creative, AI-driven content.
• Younger audiences, the 18-25 demographic, resonate with the quirky, humorous visuals and playful engagement, which mirrors their digital lives.
• This group appreciates Nutter Butter’s departure from traditional advertising norms, celebrating its relatability and nostalgic elements of the campaign.
• For many, the campaign represents a refreshing break from polished, serious marketing, bringing the brand into a more personal and fun light.

Gen Z seems less concerned with brand prestige and more interested in how brands can fit seamlessly into their daily media consumption. As a result, Nutter Butter’s strategy successfully taps into the younger demographic’s desire for humor, innovation, and authenticity in brand interactions.

Neutral Reactions

• 20-30% of social media comments are neutral toward the campaign.
• There is curiosity or mild interest in the novelty of AI-generated content but lack a strong emotional connection to the brand.
• Some discuss the effectiveness of such a marketing strategy, wondering whether the trendy approach enhances or diminishes the brand’s identity.

The neutral tone suggests the campaign catches attention but may not deeply resonate with all consumers or drive sales.

Negative Reactions

• 15-30% of comments are skeptical or negative.
• Older demographics, the 30-45 demographic, express concerns about using AI in marketing.
• This group questions whether incongruent approaches damage brand value.
• Many critics feel that the campaign, while innovative, may alienate those who prefer traditional advertising that focuses on product quality and consumer trust.
• There is concern the campaign might be sacrificing brand seriousness and substance for the sake of humor and digital relevance.

Some voice concerns about the shallowness of the messaging, feeling the content’s cryptic nature and reliance on humor may overshadow Nutter Butter’s core product attributes. This exemplifies a broader cultural tension between embracing modern marketing techniques and maintaining the perceived quality and trustworthiness of established brands.

Cultural and Generational Reflections

The varied responses to Nutter Butter’s TikTok campaign underscore a significant cultural and generational shift in how brands interact with their audiences. Younger consumers, especially Gen Z and millennials, embrace risky and humorous branding that prioritizes entertainment and relatability over formality.

The campaign’s success among young people may signal consumer willingness to abandon traditional and legacy methods and mediums. Brands may increasingly be expected to break from traditional advertising conventions and connect with consumers in more human, approachable ways.

However, some argue edgy, unconventional communication tactics are universally appealing to younger generations. They say, what was avant-garde a generation ago is now tired, and the 18-25 demographic is predictable in its desire for “new” and “fresh” media. This interpretation leans away from signs of cultural shift, citing generational cycles as predictors of perceived shifts.

If there is a shift, it seems to confirm the growing power of social media on brand strategies. For Nutter Butter, the decision to lean into AI-generated creativity is a calculated move to stay relevant in a digital landscape.

AI’s Role in Modern Communication

Using AI technology to create surreal, distorted visuals also generates discussion. For some, AI represents a new frontier in marketing. The positive reaction from younger audiences shows their willingness to embrace technology-driven content. This aligns with their digital-first media consumption habits.

However, criticism voices concerns about the role of AI in shaping marketing, content, and news. Many older consumers worry that relying too heavily on AI-generated content will erode the human aspect of creative content as well as its quality and reliability.

Political Undercurrents

Younger generations, particularly Gen Z, prioritize authenticity, humor, and relatability in both advertising and political messaging. This shift coincides with a growing rejection of establishment traditions and methods. The forward-leaning use of AI in marketing, news, and politics, suggests traditional tactics may not appeal to younger audiences.

In a political context, Nutter Butter’s campaign validates growing pushback against established authority. Younger generations challenge political and institutional norms, embracing unconventional and disruptive communication tactics.

Older demographics, who often favor traditional, polished advertising, diverge in their strategies, often lacking connection with target audiences. This divide mirrors political polarization between generations. Meme-driven hype around the launch of Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign illustrates the generational divide on a political front.

Billionaire businessman Mark Cuban went viral for saying inflation was not caused by "price gouging," defying the Democratic platform, for which he is known to act as a surrogate. He said on CNBC that unprecedented levels of government spending on things like the Inflation Reduction Act, for which Kamala Harris was the tie-breaker vote, are the true cause.

OMG. Mark Cuban accidentally admits the truth, says inflation was not caused by "price gouging," but rather record spending (which Kamala was the tie-breaking vote on.)

Kamala's top surrogate just blew up her entire economic message. Incredible. pic.twitter.com/HcwBLgYo6x

— johnny maga (@_johnnymaga) September 26, 2024

MIG Reports data shows Democratic views of inflation in two categories:

• The seriousness of inflation
• How talking about inflation impacts their candidate

Discussion among Democrats is carefully crafted to maintain voter confidence and achieve electoral success. Rather than a straightforward engagement with the economic realities Americans face, inflation becomes a rhetorical tool used to shift blame, deflect responsibility, and bolster the Democratic Party’s campaign narrative.

In recent interviews, Harris herself has deflected from answering questions about the economy, price gouging, inflation, and how she plans to help Americans.

What does this even mean…?

Kamala Harris: "Well if you are... hard working... if you... have... uh... the dreams and the ambitions and the aspirations of what I believe you do, you're in my plan." pic.twitter.com/vgnZpe1EKu

— Gunther Eagleman™ (@GuntherEagleman) September 25, 2024

Among Democrats:

• 40% blame Trump for the economy
• 25% acknowledge the negative state of inflation
• 19% express economic concerns
• 16% frame the economy as doing well

Glossing Over Inflation: A Strategic Approach

Democrats often acknowledge inflation, but the depth of that engagement varies. Many gloss over or reframed it as a problem inherited from the Trump administration. They frame the Biden-Harris administration as stabilizing the economy in the aftermath of Republican mismanagement.

By casting inflation as a residual effect of Trump’s policies, Democrats downplay the immediate economic concerns of Americans in favor of campaign messaging about aspirations and hope.

This approach is particularly evident in the way Democrats focus on government job reports, stock market gains, and a gradual decrease in gas prices. These elements distract from inflationary pressures, suggesting the current administration has things under control. However, Harris risks alienating voters who are directly impacted by rising costs of living, from groceries to housing.

Electoral Victory Over Economic Engagement

Many Democrats also prioritize winning the election over finding immediate economic solutions. Discussions show a focus on preventing a second Trump term rather than addressing the root causes of inflation for American voters.

Casting blame on Republicans reveals a defensive posture, with Democrats more concerned about economy narratives than offering actionable solutions. This allows them to use inflation as a talking point against Trump rather than as a policy issue in need of immediate attention.

The strategic deflection of blame reduces urgency and accountability to the American people. Instead, economic discussions are geared toward mobilizing voter sentiment, often simplifying complex financial realities into digestible, partisan soundbites. This reliance on political calculation places importance on a second Democratic administration over answering voter concerns.

Real Voter Concerns

While Democrats are clearly using inflation as a political tool, there are some expressing genuine concern about its impact on middle-class families. There is particular focus on housing and food costs for lower income Americans.

However, even these concerns are often accompanied by broader narratives of economic success under the Biden-Harris administration. By emphasizing solutions like tax credits or small business support, Democrats frame a positive electoral message rather than presenting them as pressing crises.

These trends create a dual narrative in Democratic discourse where some are forced to acknowledge the economic pain of voters, but quickly pivoting political messaging that downplays its severity. This tension between caring about economic realities and pursuing political success is a central feature of Democratic discussions on the economy.

Polarization and the Use of Blame

Partisan rhetoric drives Democratic conversations. By consistently blaming Trump, Democrats simplify the conversation, framing it as a political battle rather than a serious issue. This shifts voter attention away from current failures and pushes a narrative that a Harris administration would bring change.

This tactic, while effective in galvanizing the base, is also dismissive of the real economic challenges voters face. The risk here is that by leaning too heavily on partisan blame, Democrats may lose the opportunity to connect with voters.

The ongoing discourse about Ukrainian President Zelensky’s perceived campaign against Donald Trump exposes partisan divides in the United States. As conversations unfold among voters from all political affiliations, tensions cause strong reactions to Zelensky’s actions, viewed through ideological lenses.

Many are discussing the apparent fervent support for President Zelensky among Democrats, hinting at a stronger alliance between Ukraine and a potential Harris administration.

Worth noting that Zelenskyy was flown to Pennsylvania on an U.S. Air Force C-17.

The Biden-Harris admin is using military assets to fly a foreign leader into a battleground state in order to undermine their political opponents. https://t.co/OSebVUuBEg pic.twitter.com/biMGTfAc1J

— Dan Caldwell 🇺🇸 (@dandcaldwell) September 23, 2024

Republicans

Zelensky’s actions are widely seen as foreign interference, fueling anger and reinforcing support for Trump. More than 60% of Republicans indicate their intention to vote for Trump, viewing Zelensky’s involvement with politicians as an attack on U.S. sovereignty.

Democrats

Zelensky’s opposition to Trump aligns with their criticisms of Trump’s foreign policy—especially regarding Ukraine and Russia. While this validates their stance and energizes some, Democrats were already largely opposed to Trump, making the impact on turnout less significant compared to Republicans.

Independents

More divided, Independents have varied criticisms. Some support Zelensky’s critique of Trump, while others worry about foreign influence in U.S. elections. Moderate enthusiasm is lower, with about a third considering voting for a third-party. This suggests frustration with the polarized political landscape.

Pennsylvania stands with Ukraine as they defend their homeland and fight for freedom. https://t.co/IaCpOtR1Ao

— Governor Josh Shapiro (@GovernorShapiro) September 23, 2024

Across all voter groups, there is a growing sense of polarization, with partisan lines remaining entrenched. Discussions often highlight fears of foreign interference, causing a surge of nationalism, particularly among Republicans. These dynamics may or may not impact on voter behavior, with Republicans and Democrats rallying around their respective candidates while Independents increasingly withdraw from the political process.

Voter Discussion Analysis

Beyond surface-level reactions to Zelensky’s opposition against Trump, discourse shows further sociopolitical undercurrents shaping voter behavior in the United States. There is both a reaction to a foreign leader's involvement in American politics and broader existential concerns among the electorate.

Republicans

Zelensky's actions have become a proxy for wider anxieties about national sovereignty, globalism, and the perceived erosion of American exceptionalism. More than 60% of Republicans say Ukraine relations make them likely to turn out for Trump. This reflects the image of Trump as both a candidate and a symbol of resistance against external forces, both foreign and domestic.

Democrats

Zelensky’s critique of Trump serves as confirmation of Democrats’ existing narrative which frames Trump as damaging America's standing on the global stage. They believe he has weakened democratic alliances and emboldened autocratic regimes.

While Democrats are already motivated to oppose Trump, Zelensky’s involvement adds righteous moral dimension to their cause. They claim to vote for the preservation of democratic values under siege from authoritarianism—both within and outside the U.S.

Independents

The reaction among Independent voters is complex. Their ambivalence reflects a broader societal fatigue with the binary, hyper-polarized nature of American politics. Many Independents are skeptical of both sides, recognizing Zelensky’s actions as problematic but also viewing Trump’s foreign policy as flawed.

Internal conflict among Independents reveals disillusionment with Trump and Harris, but with also political system overall. Their disengagement is a response to Zelensky’s actions and a reflection of dissatisfaction with both political parties.

There is a sense that neither party adequately addresses the nuanced realities of global politics or the multifaceted concerns of American voters. Independents who say they plan to abstain or vote third-party highlight the withdrawal of many who view politics overly simplistic and manipulated by underlying agendas.

Snapshot of the Trajectory

More abstractly, Zelensky’s involvement in this election serves as a demonstration of national politics which can no longer be disentangled from global events. Voter reactions to Zelensky are not merely about Ukraine or Trump but part of a larger narrative about globalization, foreign interference, and the decline of traditional nation-state autonomy.

Both Republican and Democratic voters struggle with this reality. Republicans through a lens of protectionism and anti-globalism, Democrats through a framework of moral internationalism. Independents are caught in the middle, divided between their desire for nuanced political discourse and a binary political system.

There is also a sense of the mediated nature of public discourse, where social media acts as an echo chamber, amplifying existing biases and simplifying complex geopolitical issues. Confirmation bias, biased media, emotionally charged rhetoric, and eroded trust in traditional institutions all contribute to a tribal public dialogue.

The Zelensky versus Trump narrative does more than mobilize voters—it exposes the conflicted nature of American political cohesion and deepening divides between voters and institutions. This raises questions about the future of governance, the role of foreign influence in national narratives, and whether the U.S. is capable of engaging in complex global realities without further fracture.