Let’s try some word association using antonyms. If I were to give you a word, I am reasonably sure that I know what you would select as its opposite. For example, if I say, “high,” you would probably respond, “low.” If I said “rich,” your word might be “poor.” And if I were to say, “bad,” you would probably state, “good.”
But I doubt you would consider the opposite of “bad” to be “well,” as this ad’s headline would have it. As in “Be bad. Snack well.”
Yes, it is the name of the product being promoted. And no, I am not positive exactly how bad they are encouraging me to be. But does it not seem slightly forced to you? And therefore not quite as enticing as they probably had hoped? (The last line of copy—“They let you be bad, and still be good.”—shows that the writer knows the difference.)
I am not suggesting that the headline should have been, “Be bad. Snack good.” And I realize they do not mean that by snacking well you are being bad, though that is one literal interpretation. I really do understand what they were going for. But the thought is unclear, forced and lacking an idea, good or otherwise. Do they really think that the personification of “bad” is a lady in a leather jacket on a motorcycle?