According to the textbook approach, an issue faced when displaying the same positioning worldwide is that the strategy can hardly be adjusted to each market's requirement, as many multinational consumer-product companies would like. Rhetoric tells us that the power of a word depends on its context, and clearly the English word fuck falls into that category. FCUK's audiences in each major market may display a range of attitudes when confronted with the provocatively acronymed four-letter mark -- to the point of anti-corporate activism if sensitivities are hurt.

The American Family Association (AFA), for instance, has reached that point. It promotes initiatives against FCUK such as a pre-filled email that AFA sympathizers can send to targeted department stores, which reads: "I am appalled that you would exploit our children in such a manner. I ask that you refuse to sell the FCUK fragrances in your stores. I hope for a positive answer to my request. If not, I will certainly remember your exploitation when next I need something from your store."

In fact FCUK is indeed perceived as particularly styling among the 14 to 17 year old segment, according to the Portman Group, a British drinks industry panel. So interestingly, the AFA's media-tized petition might actually backfire in the mind of the youth it intends to protect. To rebellious teens, such a reaction – an uptight, out-of-touch reaction, they might say from the "old folks" – can only make a seemingly cool brand even more attractive. Could it be possible that FCUK connects with its young audience better than many parents do?