Some of the nation’s most respected brand experts have issued a stark warning to advertisers of Nine’s Married at First Sight (MAFS) after the show became embroiled in an alleged altercation involving two contestants.
NSW Police have been called in to investigate, after a complaint was lodged with SafeWork NSW regarding workplace health and safety concerns on set.
In a statement NSW Police confirmed that “the matter has been referred to officers from South Sydney Police Area Command, who have commenced an investigation. As the investigation is current, police will not be making any further comment in relation to the matter.”
The Sydney Morning Herald reports SafeWork NSW received a report of an alleged work health and safety issue on the set of the show and was considering whether or not to investigate.
The allegations centre upon claims that contestant Paul Antoine acted violently in an altercation with his on-screen partner, Carina Mirabile, in which Antoine allegedly punched a wall following an argument with Mirabile. The alleged altercation was not shown on screen.
Nine has released a statement on the incident saying: “We would always cooperate with authorities in any investigation, we will not be making any further comment at this time.”
Paul Antoine is alleged to have acted violently in an altercation with his on-screen partner, Carina Mirabile.
The network also added that “Nine and Endemol Shine take their obligations in respect to the health and wellbeing of the participants of this program extremely seriously.
“All participants have access to the show psychologist and welfare resources during filming, during broadcast and once the program has ended. Nine also have an additional service for participants should they like or need further individual and confidential psychological support. This service gives participants access to clinicians to support those involved in the program in relation to their experiences. This service is available to all participants for as long as they need it, it does not end.”
The incident now sparking a wider conversation as to how brands choose to align themselves, especially during a scandal.
Broader implications
While the program continues to deliver strong ratings, industry experts argue that brands need to reassess their alignment with reality TV formats that generate attention through controversy, particularly in light of growing public discussions around domestic violence and harmful behaviour.
Brand safety and domestic violence expert Amanda Stevens questions why major advertisers continue to support a show that, she argues, promotes toxic behaviours. She points to the disconnect between brands championing social responsibility in their marketing while simultaneously investing in programming that may be at odds with those values.
Brand safety and domestic violence expert Amanda Stevens
“The hypocrisy is glaring,” she says, emphasising that brands today need to consider more than just audience reach. The conversation has also highlighted concerns about how networks handle troubling content, with critics arguing that failing to address problematic on-screen behaviour effectively condones it.
“I am surprised at the brands that are still supporting shows like this,” she says. “Putting the domestic violence concerns aside for a moment, just the toxicity and the unhealthy patterns that these shows reinforce – especially when we look at issues like young girls seeking external validation – it’s flabbergasting that brands continue to sponsor them purely because of their reach.”
Matt Thomas, founder of Stake Reputation, took a different view, telling Mediaweek that brands need to be proactive rather than reactive when it comes to these partnerships. “For brands considering reality TV advertising, the real question isn’t about controversy – it’s about audiences,” he says.
“Most brands are already being more careful about where they align, but history has shown that trying to control or sanitise reality TV content doesn’t always work. Viewers see through it,” he said.
Outdated
Stevens believes many of the brands are making decisions based on outdated metrics. “I’ve been in this industry a really long time. I used to have an agency, and I am shocked that so many big brands are still making media strategy decisions based on the very ancient, one-dimensional metric of numbers,” she says. “Sure, you’re hitting some great vanity metrics on your demo, but the real question is, how is your brand being perceived? It goes beyond just getting your message out there,” she said.
She also points to the broader implications of brand partnerships with controversial programming. “Brands today need to think about more than just placement. It’s not just about the 30-second spot anymore,” she explains. “With integrated campaigns, brands are actively aligning themselves with the content, the values, and the principles of a show. And when a program is repeatedly called out for problematic behaviour, brands that ignore that and continue to invest purely for numbers are being irresponsible. I think there will be a backlash,” she added.
Matt Thomas, founder of Stake Reputation.
‘Mind-blowing hypocrisy’
Stevens is particularly critical of the network’s handling of the show’s most recent controversy, saying that ignoring concerning behaviour effectively condones it.
For her, the “issue of hypocrisy” is another sticking point. “It blows my mind,” she added. “You’ve got a network rubbing their hands together because of MAFS ratings, yet they’re also airing serious investigative segments about the domestic violence crisis on their current affairs programs. Take a look at yourselves,” she said.
Paul Antoine and Carina Mirabile.
Thomas meanwhile warns that while MAFS has always thrived on controversy, this particular case is different. “This isn’t just reality TV drama – it’s a conversation about community standards and how brands, broadcasters, and audiences respond to male violence and harmful behaviour,” he explains. “If a show starts repelling viewers instead of attracting them, no ratings success will justify the association,” he said.
He argues that the real risk for brands isn’t controversy itself, but failing to have a clear stance. “Brands that navigate these moments well have thought through their values already and know who they are,” he says. “The biggest mistake is getting caught without a position. It’s not just about knowing your customers – brands also need to keep a watching brief on the broader cultural environment. If public attitudes shift – even subtly – what was acceptable yesterday may be a liability today. And when that happens, brands won’t have to make the decision to leave; culture, competitors, and customers will make it for them,” he said.
A wedding taking place on Married at First Sight 2025.
A balancing act
Thomas also questions whether the line is shifting on MAFS itself. “The real issue isn’t whether MAFS has crossed a line – it’s whether the line itself is moving,” he says. “If the appeal of the show is its edge, softening it won’t work. But if the culture moves on – and I would argue that on this matter, it is – brands will too.”
For brands caught in the debate, Thomas advises staying grounded in core values. “Stay ahead of audience sentiment. What was acceptable a few years ago might not be today – keep monitoring real-time shifts,” he says. “Lead with values, not reactions. If controversy hits, brands with clear positioning won’t have to backtrack.”
Ultimately, Stevens and Thomas agree that brands must take a more nuanced approach to partnerships with reality TV. While MAFS continues to attract massive audiences, the risk of backlash is growing, and advertisers who fail to anticipate shifting public sentiment may find themselves facing difficult decisions down the track. “If worse comes to worst, the pathway while hard is generally fairly simple,” Thomas adds. “Say you’re sorry, communicate what you’ve done to fix it, and then demonstrate how you’ve changed.”
If you or someone you know is experiencing domestic violence know that help is always available – call 1800RESPECT or visit 1800RESPECT