The bite that may have bit back

The video that went viral—with that smug snack and smirk—may have done more harm than good.

It was a performance for the algorithm.

The infamous clip of Pierre Poilievre munching on an apple while deflecting questions from Don Urquhart went viral, became a talking point, and was amplified by media platforms like Fox News as a masterclass in handling the press.

Yet, as much as the Poilievre campaign might have relished the spotlight, one must question whether the viral moment did more harm than good.

Urquhart appears quietly vindicated by the electorate’s verdict. He believes Canadians saw through the performance. The smirking dismissal, the Trump-style baiting, the refusal to engage in good faith might have thrilled the base, but it also may have crystallized doubts among swing voters, particularly women.

“It would be fair to say I feel a substantial degree of satisfaction that Pierre Poilievre lost, not just the election but his own seat,” Urquhart told PressProgress. “Canadians saw through his three-word grade-school rhyming, and his toxicity and bullying nature.”

That’s the thing with viral content: it amplifies. But what it amplifies isn’t always helpful. In marketing, as in politics, when you skip the strategic vetting process and chase shareability, you risk reinforcing the very qualities people find off-putting. No seasoned CMO would greenlight a campaign based solely on its potential for views. Yet that’s often how viral political moments are engineered: opportunistically, impulsively, and without alignment to long-term brand goals.

The apple was a prop. The moment, a meme. But the damage? Possibly real.

Because in the end, branding—whether you’re selling policy or pop—isn’t about being liked on YouTube. It’s about being trusted at the ballot box.