Heard the one about the brand that outsourced its own personality to AI?

I just read coverage on Tourism Malaysia’s Citrawarna 2026 promo — the one where a government tourism board generated an entire cultural festival with AI instead of pointing a camera at the real cultural assets all around it. AI dancers. AI wood carvers. An AI version of a public square that already exists and was, presumably, available for filming. They even managed to mirror-image their own national flag.

I read this the way you’d read about a restaurant hanging a stock photo of a steak on the wall instead of cooking one and taking a picture of it. It’s not that the photo looks bad. It’s that it looks inauthentic and people notice. (Yes, I know firsthand how much more difficult/expensive it is to take a great food shot than to use stock or AI.  But just go with me on this.)

Countries go to great lengths to preserve and promote their unique culture. It’s the most personal and authentic thing about them. So…WTF were they thinking?

Nobody Asked the Dancers

The clip went up on June 22, featuring the festival’s cuddly mascots, Wira and Manja, walking through an AI-rendered version of Dataran Merdeka, Malaysia’s storied, flag-raising Independence Square, alongside AI depictions of traditional dancers, communities in traditional dress and hand-stretched roti canai flatbread being made. It came down two days later. No statement, no explanation. Just gone, the way something disappears when the people who approved it would rather not discuss why.

One well-known Malaysian comedian put it plainly online: the country has actual cultural dancers, actual food, actual scenery and actual creative people who could have made this. What’s unsettling isn’t that a cost-saving call got made. It’s that someone looked at the AI cut and decided it was good enough to publish.

And as I always say: stock images create stock brands. (Ok. I don’t always say that. But it does sound like something I would say.) 

Nobody Rejected the Tool. They Rejected Being Cut from the Credit.

Here’s the part that should change how you think about this. Social-listening data on the backlash found that 84.6% of the negative sentiment was about authenticity — not opposition to AI as a technology. 

That distinction matters more than the outrage cycle around it. Audiences aren’t rejecting AI. They’re rejecting being told a fake thing is the real thing and rejecting brands that skip the people who’d have made it real.

This isn’t just a Malaysia problem. It’s a cautionary tale for us all.

• 87% of consumers say the best advertising still requires a human touch, and 70% say they can tell something’s missing from an AI ad, without being told why. Audiences don’t need a disclosure label. They just feel it.
• 71% of Gen Z and Millennial consumers now believe they’ve seen an ad made with AI, up from 54% just two years ago. That’s not a niche skill anymore. That’s most of your audience, watching closer than you think.
• Only 13% of consumers say they completely trust AI, full stop, meaning every AI-made campaign starts the relationship already in the red.

It Doesn’t Know Why the Real Dancer Matters

AI is genuinely good at the mechanical stuff like rendering, resizing, filling a brief exactly as written. What it can’t do is feel embarrassed that the dancer isn’t real or come close to understanding what it means to a culture to be represented by something that was never asked to show up. It executes. It doesn’t wince.

Two examples of the same failure in different outfits:

• Meta had to pull an Instagram AI feature within days of launch after it let users generate images from real people’s public photos without asking. Same root problem as Citrawarna: using someone’s likeness, or someone’s culture, without inviting them into the decision.
• Duolingo‘s CEO announced the company was going “AI-first” — cutting contractors, leaning harder on AI — and the backlash was swift: boycott threats, thousands of TikTok unfollows, growth slowing from 60% to 40% YoY. He later admitted he hadn’t explained what any of it meant for users. AI wasn’t new to Duolingo — they’d used it for years. What was new was announcing a decision about people’s future without a word to the people watching.

The technology isn’t the risk. The failure to understand that a brand is a relationship that has two very important and often distinct points of view, as well as the absence of a human raising their hand and asking “should we?” is the risk.

Consistency Is the Whole Point

Trust now shapes 92% of global buying decisions. And brands in the top trust quartile earn a 31% revenue premium over everyone else. Distinctiveness is what earns that trust — the specific, textured, unmistakably-you details that make a brand recognizable at a glance. That’s exactly what gets sanded off when AI fills in the gaps nobody double-checked.  In Tourism Malaysia‘s case, that was the foam on the tarik tea as its poured between two cups, or the woven-leaf texture of ketupat rice cakes steamed inside palm-leaf pouches. Small details. Whole brand identity made generic.

And this compounds, because most brands aren’t being honest about how often it’s happening. Distrust of AI content roughly doubled in twelve months, while only 20% of brands always disclose when they’ve used it. That gap between what audiences want to know and what brands actually tell them is where the damage sits and grows.

What This Actually Means for Your Brand

Strip away the anecdotes and here’s what’s left — the key questions worth asking before AI touches anything customer-facing:

• Does this replace a person we could have credited instead?
• Have we disclosed that this is AI-made, proactively, before someone asks?
• If this claims to represent real people or a real culture, were real people in the room making it and not just approving it after the fact?
• Who in the loop has zero stake in the campaign and gets to say “this feels off” before it goes live?
• Is AI accelerating a decision a human already made, or making the decision for us?
• What should AI never ever be allowed to touch?

Don’t Become a Stock Brand

A stock photo isn’t wrong. It’s technically fine but emotionally empty, and it says nothing about the actual thing it’s supposed to represent. That’s what’s on offer every time a brand lets AI fill in the details nobody bothered to check — a technically competent version of yourself that could belong to anyone.

AI will never be embarrassed on your behalf. That’s still your job. Don’t let it turn you into stock.

Sources: Marketing-Interactive, July 2026, Canva, State of Marketing & AI Report, 2026, IAB, The AI Ad Gap Widens, 2026, Klaviyo, AI Consumer Trends Report, 2026, PwC, Consumer Intelligence Series, 2026, Fractl, AI Search Consumer Trust Study, 2026, TechCrunch, July 2026, Forbes, November 2025

If you’re into stories about how AI messes things up for marketers, you’re gonna love this.  

I just read a Business Insider piece on how Meta’s AI ad tools keep tripping over their own synthetic feet. 

Picture this. A menswear brand’s model got replaced by someone’s grandmother. A shoe company’s model ended up with a leg bent in a direction human legs don’t bend. An e-bike ad started talking about trunk space, which is a feature bikes famously do not have. 

Oh sure, we’re all familiar with these AI image distortions.  But the difference here is that this stuff actually ran!

I read this the way you’d read a police report about your own house being redecorated while you were at work, by a contractor you never hired, who let themselves in through a window they insist was already open.

Here’s what I can’t get past. AI still can’t be trusted anywhere near creative judgment. It’s a tool, not a colleague, and nobody promoted it to art director while the rest of us were asleep. Meta doesn’t much care whose brand gets mangled in the process, as long as the ad spend clears, because it turns out refunds cost more than reputations, and Meta has done the math on which one it’s willing to pay for. 

And any agency letting these features run on autopilot without checking the output isn’t managing your account. They’re collecting the fee and hoping you don’t read Business Insider.

Nobody Asked, Nobody Told

Quick primer, for anyone who doesn’t live inside Ads Manager. When a brand runs an ad on Meta, they don’t just upload a picture and a headline and walk away. They can turn on a suite of tools called Advantage+, Meta’s AI system that’s supposed to automatically improve the ad while it’s running live: testing different crops, swapping headlines, adjusting who sees it, all in the name of performance. In theory, it’s a machine quietly optimizing your ad. In practice, for a growing number of advertisers, it’s a machine quietly remaking your ad, and not always for the better.

True Classic, a menswear brand that sells almost exclusively to men 30-45, found this out the hard way. They had a top-performing ad running with their usual model, a fit millennial guy in a matching fleece set, exactly who their customers want to see themselves as. Advantage+ decided it had a better idea and swapped him out for a smiling grandmother sitting in an armchair. Not a subtle A/B test. A total cast change, mid-campaign, with zero heads-up. It ran for days before customers started asking the brand what, exactly, was going on. True Classic hadn’t approved the change. They didn’t know it happened until their own customers told them.

It gets better, or worse, depending on your appetite for irony. The CEO of Flat Circle, an agency that manages roughly $100 million a year in Meta ad spend, says the platform’s auto-edit settings re-enable themselves after being manually turned off. Not once. Repeatedly. His team now checks the settings several times a week, permanently, like they’re monitoring a patient who keeps pulling out their own IV.

Who’s Actually Driving

The old chain of command was simple. Agency creates, client approves, platform delivers. Everyone knew their job, and nobody’s job was “surprise.”

The new chain of command is: platform edits, platform decides, and tells you afterward, if you’re lucky. The approval step didn’t get faster. It got skipped.

And this is happening at genuine scale. Global ad spend crosses $1 trillion in 2026 for the first time, with AI-generated creative now approaching 40% of all digital video ads, up from almost nothing two years ago.

Consistency Was the Whole Business Model

Consistency isn’t a design preference, it’s the entire business model. Brands like Rolex, LEGO and Coca-Cola haven’t changed their core visual identity in decades, because sameness is what makes them instantly recognizable at a glance, anywhere in the world. Nobody has to think twice about what they’re looking at. That’s not an accident, that’s decades of discipline.

Research from Lucidpress/Marq, a brand-management research firm, found companies with consistent brand presentation across channels average 10-20% revenue growth, with the most disciplined seeing up to 33%. That’s not a soft, feel-good branding stat. That’s real money, sitting on the table, waiting for a company to either earn it or let an algorithm give it away.

So, when an algorithm swaps your model, twists a product photo or rewrites your headline, as happened to Kirruna, a European footwear brand whose Meta-generated ad showed a model’s leg bent the wrong way, it’s not just an ugly image. It’s actively working against the thing that makes a brand worth more than its product.

It Doesn’t Know Why the Rule Exists

AI is genuinely good at the mechanical stuff: resizing, translating, testing variants. It’s bad at knowing why a rule exists in the first place, because it was never told the rule was a rule. It just saw a pattern and decided to improve on it.

Same reporting, another case: Meta’s AI generated an ad for Lectric, an e-bike company, and rewrote the copy to describe a car’s trunk space instead of the bike. Nobody approved it. Nobody caught it until it was already live and doing damage.

The pitch for using AI was “less work.” The reality is a new job: someone now has to check every AI-touched asset before it airs, and again after, because sometimes the settings drift back to ON whether you asked them to or not.

What This Actually Means For You

Strip away the anecdotes and this is what’s left: a short list of hard rules and the questions you should be asking before you let any of this near your brand.

An opt-out that doesn’t stay opted out isn’t a bug. Verify it weekly or assume it’s by default, on. Every AI-altered asset that airs unchecked is a small withdrawal from your brand’s recognition account. Before any AI tool touches customer-facing content, ask who’s accountable if it’s wrong in public, and if nobody can answer that in one sentence, you don’t have a policy. If a tool needs a full-time human minder, that’s a headcount cost. 

Here are six questions worth asking before you trust it:

• Which of our tools can alter creative without a human sign-off?
• Who’s personally accountable for approving what AI generates?
• Have we actually confirmed our opt-outs are still on this week?
• Do we audit outputs on a schedule or only after a complaint?
• Who makes the final creative call, a person or a settings menu?
• What should AI never be allowed to touch?

Who’s Watching the Software

For two years the fear was AI replacing creative people. Wrong worry. The real one: who’s watching the software when it starts making decisions?

Sources: Business Insider, July 2026; Crypto Briefing, July 2026; Lucidpress/Marq State of Brand Consistency Report; Dentsu Global Ad Spend Forecast 2026

The UK recently put M&M’s on trial. The popular candy-coated chocolate maker just learned that Britain’s new restrictions on advertising foods high in fat, salt and sugar that came into force on 5 January 2026 has teeth. Before that, the rulings under it have been rare enough that marketers were still waiting to see how far the law would reach. Now they know.

Mars ran a paid Instagram ad for M&M’s. No bag of candy in sight. No bite, no crunch, no product shot. Just two cartoon characters, a round green one and an oval yellow one, standing next to the words “For a truly unique event” and a link to the M&M’s website. Mars called this brand advertising, the kind explicitly exempted from the HFSS rules because it promotes an identity rather than a specific product.

Britain’s Advertising Standards Authority disagreed. Funny enough, the green character survived. The ASA ruled it represents a whole range of M&M’s flavors and colors, not one specific product. The yellow one did not. Its oval shape, the regulator found, identifies Peanut M&M’s specifically, a distinct HFSS product in its own right. Same ad, same campaign, same brand. One mascot cleared, one convicted. 

Read that twice. A cartoon character with a face and arms just got treated as a proxy for a product ingredient list. Brand assets are becoming the product in the eyes of regulators, and this is not confined to confectionery. Similar arguments are already surfacing around alcohol, gambling and vaping, categories where the mascot, the color palette or the typeface can carry as much regulatory weight as the thing it is selling.

A Peanut Walks Into A Courtroom.

The complaint came from Bite Back, the food campaign group founded to push for tighter marketing rules on unhealthy products aimed at children. That is the enforcement model now. Advocacy groups file complaints, regulators adjudicate, and the resulting rulings become precedent that reaches well past the original brand. Consumer groups, environmental organizations and health advocates play the same role in Australia, Europe and North America. The complaint is the trigger. The ruling is the weapon.

Mars was not the only brand in the crosshairs of this particular round of rulings. Morley’s Woking, a London chicken chain, got the same treatment for an Instagram meal deal ad showing burgers, wings and fries. Uber Eats, by contrast, walked away clean on ads featuring Burger King, KFC, Domino’s and Papa Johns, because the ASA decided the food shown was not visually tied to one specific HFSS product. The line between promoting a brand and promoting a product now runs through individual pixels, and it moves case by case.

There is something almost absurd about a cartoon candy having its shape cross-examined by a regulator. Highly stylized characters with arms, legs and personalities, deployed on merchandise, clothing and partnerships that have nothing to do with food, being read as product depictions anyway. Absurd, and also entirely real. Creative symbolism has become regulatory evidence, and the brands that dismiss this as a quirky one-off are the ones most likely to be next.

The Writing’s On The Wrapper.

The UK is not moving alone. Chile restricts cartoon characters on unhealthy food packaging and advertising. Mexico has front-of-pack warning labels and advertising reform. Quebec has banned commercial advertising directed at children for decades. Australia is cracking down on greenwashing claims. The US Federal Trade Commission continues to pursue deceptive influencer marketing. The UAE and Saudi Arabia have both tightened rules on influencer disclosure, health claims and misleading advertising. The EU keeps pushing digital advertising transparency and platform accountability further.

Different legal systems, different politics, different starting points, same direction of travel: health claims, environmental claims, influencer marketing, advertising to children, financial promotions, misleading advertising. All converging toward the same demand, that a brand be able to prove what it says and defend what it shows.

The scale of what is driving this is not small. More than one billion people worldwide now live with obesity, according to the WHO and the Lancet’s 2024 global analysis, a milestone reached faster than the World Health Organization’s own projections anticipated. When the underlying public health numbers move like that, advertising law moves with them, and it does not move back.

More Than A Mouthful.

Marketers used to build for three audiences. Consumers, competitors, media. That list now runs longer: regulators, advocacy organizations, politicians, activists, courts, platforms. Every one of them can read a campaign and reach a different verdict than the one your creative team intended.

Reputation and compliance are no longer separate departments. The global influencer marketing industry is now worth more than $32 billion a year, per Influencer Marketing Hub’s 2026 figures, a channel built almost entirely on personal trust and light-touch disclosure. Regulatory scrutiny of environmental claims keeps climbing across Europe, Australia and North America. Enforcement actions involving influencers, greenwashing and undisclosed endorsements keep landing.

AI Has Turned Up the Heat.

The old enforcement model ran on complaints. Someone had to notice, someone had to care, someone had to file. That is changing. AI is increasing the scale and speed of advertising monitoring, which means regulators depend less on the public showing up with pitchforks and more on systems that scan everything, all the time. That does not necessarily mean more regulations. It means more routine investigations under the regulations already on the books, faster identification of misleading claims, undisclosed influencers, inconsistent messaging across markets and cross-border violations that used to slip through because nobody was watching every jurisdiction at once.

Read The Label Before You Print It.

Legal and compliance review needs to happen earlier, not as a final checkpoint before launch but as part of the creative process itself. Brand assets, symbols, implied claims and disclosures all deserve the scrutiny that used to be reserved for the product claims themselves. Before a campaign ships, four questions are worth asking every time.

1. Could a regulator interpret this differently than we intend. 
2. Could another market reach a different conclusion than this one. 
3. Could a brand asset itself become the product, the way an oval yellow candy just did.
4. Could this campaign become tomorrow’s precedent, the case study some other brand’s compliance team cites two years from now.

The M&M’s ruling joins a growing pile of reminders. Greenwashing investigations keep hitting major global brands. Influencer campaigns across the GCC and beyond face rising scrutiny over disclosure. None of these started as headline news. They started as one ad, one complaint, one ruling that nobody outside the legal team read closely enough at the time.

The Sweetest Lesson Of All.

Treat the M&M’s ruling as an early indicator, not an isolated curiosity. The global regulatory environment is tightening steadily, with legal scrutiny of brands rising across industries and jurisdictions, and with different political and legal systems converging, oddly, on the same stricter standards.

The M&M ruling is not really about candy. It is an early warning that marketers everywhere are entering a more heavily regulated era in which distinctive brand assets, once considered marketing strengths, are increasingly becoming legal liabilities.

For over forty years I get paid to find the words that make a product sound irresistible. Biggest, smallest, fastest, new & improved. Also: light, diet, low-fat, sugar-free, natural, organic. And now: sustainable, carbon-neutral, and, currently trending, AI-powered. Every generation of marketers invents its own magic words because every generation of customers falls for different bait. There’s nothing sinister in that. It’s just the business.

What’s changed is that nobody’s treating those words as just marketing anymore. They’re treating them as evidence. And evidence, unlike copy, has to hold up in court.

Recycled, Reused, Re-Litigated

In June 2026 the UK’s Advertising Standards Authority banned ads from Adidas, Calvin Klein and Uniqlo for using the word “recycled” in ways they couldn’t back up. 

Adidas advertised a “recycled shoe range” it turned out didn’t exist. Uniqlo’s fleece was recycled in the parts you could see and not recycled in the parts you couldn’t. Calvin Klein got dinged for implying an entire collection was made from preferred materials when the real number ranged from 20% to 100%. 

Six months earlier the same regulator had done the exact same thing to Nike, Lacoste and Superdry. Six brands. Two rulings. One word. The lesson isn’t about fashion. It’s about the word “recycled” no longer surviving close contact with a lawyer.

The Robot Reads the Fine Print Now

Here’s the part that really changed the game. The ASA didn’t catch any of this from a customer complaint. It caught it with an AI system called Active Ad Monitoring, which scanned nearly 60 million ads in 2025 alone and now accounts for close to half the regulator’s total workload. That intelligence helped resolve more than 40,000 complaints covering over 25,000 ads, resulting in more than 22,000 amendments or withdrawals. 

The old model was: someone gets annoyed, someone complains, someone investigates. The new model is: the machine reads every ad on the internet before breakfast and flags the liars. For decades marketers worried about focus groups. Now we should be worrying about a bot with better reading comprehension than all compliance departments put together.

Every Brand Should Take Notice

Lufthansa, Air France-KLM, Etihad and Virgin Atlantic have all had ads banned for implying that flying with them was somehow kinder to the planet than flying with anyone else. None of these airlines were faking their sustainability investments. Sustainable aviation fuel is real, offset programs are real. What wasn’t real was the insinuation that any of it added up to guilt-free air travel. Progress is not the same thing as permission to round up.

Healthcare Suffers the Same Scrutiny, with Sharper Teeth. In early 2026 the FDA sent Novo Nordisk two separate warning letters in the space of a month for misleading ads by Ozempic and Wegovy, their diabetes and chronic weight management drugs. One of them literally implied superiority over other GLP-1 drugs with no data to support it. Weeks later the agency issued warning letters to 30 telehealth companies for misleading marketing of compounded GLP-1 products, part of a six-month enforcement wave that produced more warning letters than the entire previous decade combined. Meanwhile in France, regulators fined Novo Nordisk close to €1.8 million and Eli Lilly over six figures for “disease awareness” campaigns that never named a drug but, according to the regulator, didn’t need to. Everyone in the room already knew which drug they meant.

Even the Category Name Is a Claim Now

Just to prove the trend has no borders and no mercy, India’s food safety regulator recently issued notices to Red Bull, Sting, Monster and several other brands for calling themselves “energy drinks” (a category that, as it turns out, doesn’t officially exist under Indian food law). Marketers get so comfortable with category language that we stop noticing it’s actually a claim. Apparently regulators noticed for us.

Patriotism, Audited

The FTC launched a “Made in the USA” enforcement sweep in April 2026, settling with sellers of flags, entertainment systems, and footwear for claiming products were American-made when they were partly stitched together in the Dominican Republic and Brazil. One company advertised boots as “handcrafted 100%” domestically while sourcing components from two other countries. “Made in,” “Built in,” and “Designed in” sound interchangeable in a brainstorm. They are not interchangeable to a federal regulator with a customs manifest.

The Cancel Button Is Also Copy

And it’s not just the ad anymore. The FTC’s $2.5 billion settlement with Amazon ($1 billion in penalties, $1.5 billion back to roughly 35 million affected customers) was about Prime enrollment and cancellation flows, not a single banner ad. The checkout screen, the “are you sure?” pop-up, the maze between “cancel” and “confirm cancel,” all of it is now marketing communication, and all of it is now litigable.

The AI Doesn’t Forget What You Deleted

Then there’s the part that actually raises the stakes. BCG found that shopping-related generative AI use grew 35% between February and November 2025. Capgemini found that a quarter of consumers already used generative AI shopping tools in 2025, with another 31% planning to. That matters because an AI assistant doesn’t just repeat your tagline back to you: it cross-references it. It notices when your sustainability page says one thing and your annual report says another. It remembers the claim you quietly walked back last year. Marketing used to compete for attention. It’s now competing for something much harder to fake: consistency across every document you’ve ever published.

Trust Is the New Adjective

Edelman’s latest Trust Barometer puts it plainly: 88% of consumers say trust is an important factor in deciding whether to buy from a brand. That’s not new information: trust has mattered since the first merchant sold the first not so fresh fish. What’s new is how fast it can now be tested, by a regulator, a journalist, a competitor or a chatbot, often within the same week the campaign launches.

What This Actually Means for the Work

The job hasn’t gotten smaller. It’s gotten more interesting. The old question was “how can we make this sound better?” The new question is “how can we make this true enough that nobody, not a regulator, not a rival, not an algorithm, can take it apart?” That’s a harder brief. It’s also, frankly, the brief we should have been writing to all along.

What Marketers Should Actually Do About It

• Treat every claim as something that will eventually be read by a regulator, a competitor, a journalist, and an AI model, because it will.
• Replace the adjective with the number. “Sustainable” is an opinion. “40% recycled polyester, independently certified” is a fact.
• Assume nothing about a fashionable word’s meaning. “Recycled,” “natural,” and “AI-powered” all mean whatever a regulator decides they mean this year.
• Remember that the checkout page, the cancellation flow, and the subscription terms are marketing copy too, and they get read in court.
• Build the proof before you write the headline, not after someone asks for it.
• Get legal and compliance into the room during the creative process, not after the campaign’s already shot.
• Write claims that will still be true in five years, not just until the next sales meeting.
• Stop asking how good your copy sounds. Start asking how fast someone else could prove it wrong.

Sources: European Commission, Green Claims / greenwashing study; UK Competition & Markets Authority; UK Advertising Standards Authority (ASA/CAP), including the ASA and CAP Annual Report 2025 and Active Ad Monitoring briefing; U.S. Federal Trade Commission; U.S. Food & Drug Administration; France ANSM (Agence Nationale de Sécurité du Médicament et des Produits de Santé); India FSSAI (Food Safety and Standards Authority of India); Boston Consulting Group (BCG); Capgemini Research Institute; Edelman Trust Barometer

I was reading a Fast Company article about Pirate’s Booty, the puffed rice-and-corn snack with the wonderfully ridiculous name, and its new rebrand. It reminded me that marketers never seem to learn one basic lesson: a successful brand can become sacred to the people who buy it. Maybe there were too many young mateys in the brand meeting and not enough weathered pirates who knew which treasure not to bury.

Pirate’s Booty, now part of The Hershey Co., was created in 1987 by entrepreneur Robert Ehrlich as a healthier alternative to other kids’ snacks.  It’s one of those brands whose charm has always lived partly in its own silliness. It is a cheesy puffed snack with a pirate, a treasure-chest and a name that sounds as if it was approved by a seven-year-old.

The original pirate had an expression that seemed to say, “Hi! I’m not wearing pants,” while the parrot had an expression that seemed to say, “Hi! He’s definitely not wearing pants.” That was part of the charm. Nobody was looking to Pirate’s Booty for maritime trouser compliance.

Now the artwork has moved from a flatter, more hand-drawn 2D style to a more dimensional, animated-looking 3D world. Yes, the new pirate is clearly wearing pants, in case you were wondering. But what I really want to know is why no one is talking about the fact that his eye patch appears to have changed sides? To me, that should be the major controversy. This poor man has somehow suffered the misfortune of gaining eyesight back in one eye while losing it in the other. Or worse, maybe he never had an eye problem in the first place, and the brand has been living with this lie all along.

My point is that the old packaging had a scruffy, lunchbox, treasure-map quality. The pirate felt like he belonged on a snack bag, not on a brand strategy slide. Then came the redesign: cleaner, smoother, neater, more modern, more polished and more professionally behaved. In other words, exactly the sort of thing that can sometimes make a brand worse while making every individual element look “better.”

When Better Looks Worse

This is where many companies get into trouble. They confuse modernization with cosmetic surgery. They take something familiar, loved and a little odd, send it away for expensive work, then act surprised when it comes back looking younger, tighter and somehow less itself.

A bad rebrand is a lot like the backlash a beloved actress gets after a nip and tuck. The public reaction is rarely, “What marvelous structural refinement.” It’s usually, “What happened to her?” That’s because people don’t fall in love with symmetry. They fall in love with expression, character and familiarity.

Brands work the same way. You can simplify a logo, polish a mascot, update the packaging, refine the colors and improve every visible element, yet still damage the thing people actually liked. The brand comes back from surgery looking more contemporary, but less familiar. Customers notice, even if they don’t describe it in the language of brand equity. They never say, “You damaged a distinctive memory structure.” They say something much more useful: “Why did you ruin it?”

The Customer Owns the Feeling

Marketers should listen to that, because a successful brand is the love child of a company and a customer. The company creates the name, logo, package, mascot, color palette, tone and promise. But customers add the memory. They add the recognition, ritual, habit, trust, nostalgia, loyalty and emotional meaning. The company may own the trademark, but the customer owns the feeling.

That’s why changing a brand isn’t just a design decision. Its relationship surgery. And when companies operate without understanding what customers are emotionally attached to, they shouldn’t be shocked when the patient wakes up angry.

Inside companies, familiar brand assets often start to feel tired. The brand team has seen the logo too many times. The agency wants to make its mark. The new CMO wants proof of momentum. The board wants modernization. Someone says the current identity is not “digital-first,” and before anyone can say “distinctive assets,” a beloved mascot is being quietly made to walk the plank.

But customers aren’t in those meetings. They’re not tired of the brand in the same way the brand team is tired of the brand. They see it for a few seconds on a shelf, sign, app icon, aircraft tail, streaming screen or restaurant wall. Familiarity is not boredom to them. Familiarity is usefulness. This is where companies get dangerously stupid. They look at a familiar symbol and see age. Customers look at the same symbol and see home.

Clean Can Become Empty

Cracker Barrel learned that lesson the hard way. When the company removed the familiar old man from its logo, it may have thought it was simplifying. Many customers saw something else. They saw a brand removing one of the cues that made it feel like Cracker Barrel.

The old man wasn’t elegant. He wasn’t sleek. Exactly. He was rocking chairs, biscuits, road trips, country-store clutter, fake old-timey comfort and the promise that nothing inside would be too surprising. He wasn’t decoration. He was a shortcut to the whole experience.

The backlash became political, cultural and emotional almost immediately, but underneath the noise was a very simple marketing lesson. Customers had decided that the old man belonged to the brand. When the company removed him, customers behaved as if something had been taken from them. Eventually, the company reversed course. That is the thing about brand symbols: from the inside they often look decorative, but from the outside they may be foundational.

Recognition Is Not Decoration

The same mistake can happen with packaging. Tropicana famously replaced its familiar orange-with-a-straw image with a cleaner, more premium-looking carton. In a design presentation, it probably looked fresh. On a supermarket shelf, it became harder to find. The orange wasn’t just a picture. It was a shopping shortcut. It said, “Here I am. I am the one you already know and love” When Tropicana removed it, the brand didn’t simply lose a visual device. It damaged recognition at the exact moment recognition mattered most.

This is why distinctive brand assets matter so much. Logos, colors, mascots, slogans, package shapes and product cues are not merely aesthetic choices. They are commercial infrastructure. They help people recognize, choose and trust a brand without having to think too much about it. One study of brand codes found that only about 15% of tested assets were truly distinctive. That should terrify marketers. If your brand is lucky enough to own something people recognize, why casually sand it down until it looks like everything else?

The lesson isn’t that old is always better. Sometimes old is just old. Sometimes a logo really does need to be improved, a package really does need to be simplified, and a brand really does need to evolve. But there is a difference between removing clutter and removing character. There is a difference between modernizing a brand and making it anonymous.

The Meaning Test Beats the Taste Test

Coca-Cola learned an even bigger version of this lesson all those years ago with New Coke. The company thought it had a product problem. Pepsi was winning taste-test battles. A sweeter formula tested well. So, Coca-Cola changed the formula. On paper, it was rational. In real life, it was madness.

People weren’t just drinking a fizzy brown liquid. They were drinking memory, Americana, habit, family refrigerators, gas stations, ballgames and one of the most loaded pieces of commercial symbolism on earth. Coca-Cola won the taste test and lost the meaning test.

That’s one of the great traps in research. (There’s more than one, but don’t get me started!) It can tell you what people prefer in isolation, but not always what they are emotionally unwilling to lose. When testing a rebrand, companies should not only ask which design looks better. They should ask which design still feels like us, what customers would miss if it disappeared, what people will think we are trying to say, and what meaning we may be accidentally killing.

Even Temporary Changes Touch Memory

Poor Spotify. Its temporary 20th-anniversary app icon was glittery and disco-ball-like. It was not meant to be permanent. It was a campaign flourish. But plenty of users hated it anyway and wanted the familiar green icon back.

That reaction matters precisely because the change was temporary. If people can get irritated by a short-lived icon change, imagine what happens when a company permanently removes a symbol customers use every day to find, trust or emotionally decode a brand.

Global Brands Still Need Roots

British Airways once tried to replace its Union Flag-style tailfins with more international “World Tails” designs. Strategically, the logic was understandable. Airlines are global. Customers are global. Britain itself was changing. The company wanted to look more cosmopolitan. But many customers and critics saw a British airline removing one of the clearest visual signs of Britishness from its aircraft. The lesson isn’t that national symbols are always sacred. The lesson is that rootedness matters. A global brand doesn’t become more global by becoming less itself.

The Backlash Is Now Part of the Launch

The stakes are higher now because trust has become more personal and backlash has become more immediate. Roughly 80% of people say they trust brands they personally use. That’s not abstract corporate goodwill. That’s intimate, practical trust. It’s the trust of “I know this,” “I buy this,” “this has never disappointed me,” “my family uses this,” and “this is part of my life.” So, when a company changes familiar brand symbols, customers can experience it as more than a visual update. The company thinks it changed a logo. The customer thinks it changed the deal.

What’s more, a rebrand no longer launches quietly. Screenshots spread instantly. Critics pounce. Customers mock. AI search summarizes the outrage. Investors notice. Employees cringe. The launch video with the earnest voiceover suddenly looks like evidence at a trial. A rebrand is no longer a controlled announcement. It is an open audition for public ridicule.

The Real Sin Is Disrespect

None of this means brands should never change. Of course they should change. Markets change. Customers change. Channels change. Technology changes. Taste changes. A brand that never evolves eventually becomes a museum piece with a sales target. But smart change makes a brand more itself. Bad change makes a brand more generic. Bad change behaves as if the trademark certificate is the whole relationship.

That’s the arrogance at the heart of so many failed rebrands: believing that because the company owns the mark, it owns the relationship. A successful brand is the love child of a company and a customer. And nobody likes watching one parent give the child a facelift without permission.

What Marketers Should Learn

Before changing a familiar brand asset, marketers should ask what job it actually does. Does it help people recognize you faster? Does it signal trust? Does it carry heritage? Does it make you distinctive? Does it create affection? Does it make customers feel that you are still the brand they chose? If the answer is yes, treat it carefully.

Don’t start with what the brand team is tired of. Start with what customers would miss. Don’t mistake a cleaner logo for a stronger brand. Don’t assume “digital-first” means “personality-last.” Don’t let the strategy deck murder the mascot. And above all, don’t surgically remove the weird little thing people love just because it looks old in a conference room.

Maybe Pirate’s Booty will be fine. Maybe the new pirate will settle in. Maybe kids won’t care. But this lesson is bigger than one pantsless, eyepatch swapping pirate.

When customers love a brand, they don’t only love the product. They love the accumulated meaning around it: the oddness, the shortcuts, the signs, the rituals and the emotional furniture. Change those things carelessly and people may react as if something has been stolen from them. Because, in a way, it has.

Sources: Fast Company — Pirate’s Booty rebrand and packaging update, Reuters — Cracker Barrel logo reversal after backlash, Ipsos / Jones Knowles Ritchie — Distinctive brand assets research, Edelman — 2025 Brand Trust report.

Once upon a time, branding meant selling products. Now, brands are in the people business — elevating founders, leadership teams and even the intern with a breakout TikTok. Why? Because the combined social footprint of a company’s people can easily outstrip the following of a young brand.

Case in point: my friend with 1.6 million TikTok followers — mostly watching him eat — is now igniting his fashion brand almost entirely off that audience. It’s a reminder that if you already have reach, you can skip years of expensive customer acquisition. A single influencer with a loyal following can effectively kickstart a company and save a fortune in marketing spend.

Look at Grace Beverley, founder of TALA in the UK. She started with a modest personal following, parlayed it into a fitness ebook empire and then scaled TALA to 85 employees. Today, she’s as much a media property as her brand, proving that personal reach can be the most potent marketing channel. This isn’t unusual — in fact, with 5.2 billion people (64% of the global population) on social media, the brand account is often playing catch-up to the personalities behind it.

Why It Works (When It Works)

The psychology is simple: people trust people more than logos. Huda Kattan is living proof. Her beauty empire reaches 54 million global followers, each post a personal endorsement that moves product without the whiff of an ad buy.

This “parasocial ROI” is why Daryl-Ann Denner’s apparel brand Nuuds sold out its launch in seven minutes. Two million followers weren’t just shopping — they were buying from a friend they’d never met.

And in some cases, an influencer’s following can all but launch a company overnight. If the trust is already there, you’re not starting from zero — you’re starting from a built-in audience that can replace months of paid media spend.

The economics are equally compelling. Brands earn an average of $4.12 for every $1 spent on Instagram influencer campaigns and the global influencer marketing industry will hit $32.55 billion by the end of 2025. No wonder 80% of brands have held or increased influencer budgets this year with nearly half raising them by more than 11%.

The Hidden Job You Just Took On

Of course, it’s not just charisma — it’s labor. A “low-output” founder still needs to keep a steady drip of content across multiple platforms. TikTok rewards daily posting. Instagram wants 3–5 posts a week. LinkedIn punishes you for going dark for more than seven days.

And this isn’t just product talk. The audience wants behind-the-scenes moments, failures, personal milestones, customer shoutouts and yes — a little controversy now and then. With 5.07 billion social media users spending an average of 2 hours and 20 minutes a day online, you’re competing for attention in a marketplace that’s both massive and ruthless.

But founder beware. Once you train your audience to expect you, disappearing feels like ghosting a relationship.

Why It Fails 

The same forces that make a founder-influencer valuable can also turn them into a liability and in some cases a serious business risk. For clarity a brand here means the sum of the company’s reputation identity and customer relationship — not just a logo or a product line. The ego tax happens when a founder starts chasing engagement instead of building that reputation. Likes get mistaken for loyalty. A post that racks up 100,000 hearts feels like validation even if it’s about a pet’s Halloween costume and has nothing to do with the business. Over time the content shifts toward whatever gets clicks rather than what reinforces the brand promise which leads to audience drift confusion about what the company stands for and eventually falling sales.

Overexposure is another trap. A brand tied too tightly to a founder’s constant presence can feel fresh at first then stale fast. Engagement spikes then collapses as audiences tire of the repetition. Beauty companies saw this in Q1 2025 when Instagram earned media value for the category dropped 28% year over year. Even strong content suffers when saturation sets in and the cost of maintaining attention rises while returns fall.

Burnout is the slow bleed that can take a brand down without warning. Lee Tilghman built a large following by sharing healthy recipes lifestyle tips and personal reflections but years of constant creation and personal exposure took a toll. She walked away citing exhaustion and returned only cautiously. When the founder is the primary marketing channel burnout doesn’t just mean a personal break it can mean losing the engine driving awareness and sales.

Follower inflation is another credibility killer. Daniella Pierson’s Newsletter claimed more than a million subscribers but reporting showed closer to 500,000 were active. In industries where perceived reach fuels sponsorships partnerships and valuations revelations like that don’t just dent reputation they can undercut revenue and stall growth.

Then there’s the succession cliff. When a founder sells, steps back or simply stops being interesting a brand that depends too heavily on one personality can lose value almost instantly. Investors see this as a structural weakness and treat it as a red flag in due diligence. Without a plan to bring other credible faces and voices into the public eye the brand’s equity becomes tied to a single person’s willingness to keep performing.

The Archetypes

Not all founder-influencers operate the same way and each style shapes the brand’s positioning risk profile and growth potential.

The Relatable Expert works for brands that trade on trust credibility and expertise. Vivy Yusof co-founded FashionValet, a Malaysian e-commerce fashion platform, and dUCk, a premium scarf and accessories brand. She blends entrepreneurship and personal life with more than a million followers posting selectively but with value. Her slower growth rate is offset by deeper audience loyalty which helps her brands hold steady over time and weather market fluctuations.

The Entertaining Tyrant suits brands that thrive on attention and cultural relevance but can tolerate higher volatility. Lorna Luxe founded her own namesake Lorna Luxe fashion label after building 1.4 million followers on bold style choices and unapologetic commentary. For her brand this drives rapid spikes in engagement and awareness but also means the brand’s tone and reputation rise and fall with her public persona.

The Evangelist is ideal for brands built on mission-driven or lifestyle positioning where energy and emotional connection convert directly into sales. Emma Grede co-founded Good American, the size-inclusive fashion brand, and later became founding partner of Skims. Good American launched with $1 million in day-one sales by leaning into inclusive storytelling and high-energy personal presence. The payoff for the brand is immediate demand and strong advocacy but it requires sustained personal visibility to keep momentum.

The Anti-Influencer works for brands that want to project exclusivity and scarcity. This founder posts rarely and maintains high mystique which can strengthen brand desirability and pricing power. The trade-off is slower awareness growth and longer timelines to scale. A clear example is Phoebe Philo, whose eponymous luxury fashion label debuted in 2023 after years out of the public eye and relies on her selective, almost invisible presence to cultivate desirability.

The Proxy Builder model stands out for brand longevity because it anchors growth beyond one personality. A strong real-life example is Phlur under Chriselle Lim. While Lim helped revive the brand and remains its creative director after TSG Consumer Partners’ 2025 acquisition, she has built the public identity of Phlur around its perfumers, collaborators, and community stories rather than herself. This deliberate shift means the brand can scale without being solely dependent on her personal visibility, preserving its indie credibility while ensuring resilience if her role changes.

The Strategic Playbook

The most successful founder-influencers operate like pros, not like people winging it on their phones. They set boundaries early — deciding what’s public, what’s private and what’s never going online. They integrate founder content into the brand mix without making it the entire marketing strategy.

They stage-manage authenticity, batch-shooting “spontaneous” moments so they can focus on running the company the other six days of the week. They use their reach to elevate others — customers, employees, partners — so the brand becomes bigger than one personality.

They also understand that reach doesn’t have to cost a fortune. Jones, a UK drinks brand, generated 300 million views by filming simple street interviews and podcast-style conversations — proof that a smart low-cost concept can outperform big-budget campaigns if it connects with the right audience.

The Future

AI is already in the mix and it’s moving fast. In 2025, 92% of brands say they already use or plan to use AI to streamline influencer content — from drafting captions and editing videos to cloning founder voices for rapid content production. This isn’t just about saving time; it’s about scaling a founder’s presence across multiple channels without physically being there.

The scale of the opportunity is enormous. The creator economy is projected to grow from $191 billion in 2025 to $528.4 billion by 2030, meaning the competition for attention will intensify and the tools that can amplify a brand’s voice efficiently will become essential.

One of the more experimental developments is the rise of synthetic founders — fully fictional personalities created to humanize a brand. For companies without a public-facing founder, this offers a way to craft a consistent, controllable brand ambassador. The downside is the looming trust problem; audiences can feel duped if they discover the person they’ve been following doesn’t exist.

There are also outliers who illustrate the power of merging tech entrepreneurship with personal brand equity. One clear example is Lucy Guo—as of 2025 she became the world’s youngest self-made female billionaire, thanks to her nearly 5% ownership stake in Scale AI, the data-labeling AI company she co-founded in 2016  . Her rise demonstrates how innovation and personal credibility can fuel each other in ways even AI can’t replicate.

The next frontier could be a backlash — a founder detox. Audiences asking for the product without the constant personality show. Smart brands will anticipate this and have an exit strategy ready, shifting focus back to product strength and other credible voices before fatigue sets in.

Walking The Tightrope 

Being a founder-influencer is a constant act of balance — thrilling when it works and unforgiving when it doesn’t. You are both the tightrope walker and the rope itself carrying the weight of the brand’s image while navigating the scrutiny that comes with being its most visible ambassador. The ones who win see their role not as a distraction from the business but as a growth engine for it. They use their visibility to build trust faster than a faceless brand ever could, turn their personality into a competitive advantage and create momentum that paid media alone would struggle to match.

The difference is intention. Successful founder-influencers approach their presence with the same discipline they bring to product design or strategy. They build a strong supporting cast to keep the story fresh, develop a deep library of ready-to-post content so the brand never loses its voice and stay focused on amplifying the brand rather than themselves. Done right the founder-as-influencer isn’t just a marketing tactic — it’s a brand asset that can shorten the path to relevance, deepen customer loyalty and drive growth that outlasts any single post or personality.

Sources: Edelman Trust Barometer 2025 – Trust in People vs Brands, Digital Marketing Institute – Global Influencer Marketing Market Size 2025, PR Newswire – Influencer Marketing in 2025 Report, Vogue Business – Beauty Industry Instagram EMV Decline Q1 2025, Smart Insights – Global Social Media Usage Data 2025, Glamour – Nuuds Launch Case Study, Financial Times – Grace Beverley and TALA Growth Story, Washington Post – Lee Tilghman Influencer Burnout, Business Insider – Daniella Pierson Newsette Subscriber Numbers, Wikipedia – Profiles of Huda Kattan, Emma Grede, Vivy Yusof, Chriselle Lim.

I’m not sure if I’ve ever been cool or if I’ve always been cool — which probably means I’m neither. Being cool seems like a lot of work, except the first rule of being cool is that it can’t look like you’re trying. So there are rules, but also no rules at all. What I do know is that cool is slippery. What’s cool to you might be cringe to someone else. Brands that were once the definition of cool aren’t anymore… or suddenly are again… or will be next Tuesday. The only constant? Vigilance. Cool doesn’t coast. If you’re not actively staying relevant, you’re already aging out.

The Life Cycle of Cool

This is what happens when brands grow up. Glossier, once beauty’s indie savior, struggles to regain its spark. Supreme, the New York streetwear icon that taught a generation the thrill of scarcity, now feels routine. Allbirds, the sustainable shoe brand once synonymous with minimalist chic, saw revenues tumble as the hype cooled. Peloton, once the darling of at-home fitness, saw engagement drop as competitors flooded the market. A global survey shows Gen Z are quick to disengage from brands they find out of touch.

At the same time, formerly dead brands can come alive if they read the room. Abercrombie & Fitch, once a punchline, learned to laugh at itself. Its self-aware, inclusive TikTok strategy boosted engagement significantly. H&M saw declining relevance in Europe until pivoting to sustainability-focused campaigns, improving brand sentiment in measurable ways.

Reinvention Over Refresh

The reinvention stories are compelling. Burberry traded safe beige for Daniel Lee’s punchy new vision, reigniting cultural chatter. LEGO evolved from toy to entertainment heavyweight with collaborations spanning Netflix to Adidas, helping drive record-breaking revenue. Fenty Beauty keeps stretching what inclusivity means in beauty, fueling significant growth. Kia Motors rebranded with a future-focused aesthetic and influencer-driven EV campaigns, boosting social engagement noticeably. Brands taking creative risks see outsized engagement lifts.

Cool Isn’t Universal

Cool doesn’t translate the same way in every market. Shein, a Chinese fast-fashion powerhouse criticized in the West for its environmental and labor practices, has found massive success in the Middle East by doubling down on affordability, fast inventory cycles, and leveraging armies of regional micro-influencers who speak directly to local audiences. Starbucks China defends its market leadership not by pushing Western coffee culture, but by leaning into deep-rooted traditions, such as elaborate Lunar New Year campaigns and localized product offerings like red bean lattes, which resonate with Chinese consumers in a tightening coffee market. Lay’s stays relevant by creating hyper-local campaigns, like limited-edition flavors and influencer-driven activations in India and the Middle East, proving that snacks can be deeply cultural when they mirror local tastes and traditions. Netflix Korea mastered the art of exporting local culture globally — creating hits like Squid Game that blend Korean storytelling sensibilities with universal themes, turning regional content into global phenomena. In APAC, where 62% of consumers expect brands to tailor their approach to local culture, one-size-fits-all messaging simply doesn’t work.

How Not to Age Out

Staying relevant isn’t a matter of luck — it’s deliberate, ongoing work. The brands that manage to avoid becoming digital wallpaper are those that treat communications as a living conversation, not a static bulletin board. Here’s how to stay in the game:

• Audit honestly: If your engagement is flatlining, it’s not a blip — it’s an alarm bell. Use social listening, audience surveys, and performance data to figure out where you’re losing traction and why.
• Invest in cultural R&D: Don’t treat new platforms like TikTok or Discord as afterthoughts. Use them as laboratories for experimentation, testing unconventional content styles, formats, and voices without fear of failure.
• Co-create: Stop renting audiences through one-off influencer posts. Partner with creators who have earned trust in their communities and bring them into the brand-building process to develop authentic, culturally resonant campaigns.
• Balance your content: Your grid shouldn’t look like an ad catalog. Blend polished campaign visuals with in-the-moment storytelling — live streams, behind-the-scenes content, and unpolished posts that make audiences feel part of the process.
• Localize with intent: Avoid the trap of copy-pasting content globally. Tailor your tone, visuals, and product storytelling to local tastes and trends — because what earns likes in New York may fall flat in Shanghai.

Relevance Is Rented

Cool has an expiration date. You don’t own it — you rent it. Brands that thrive understand this lease needs constant renewal — watching culture closely, experimenting boldly and dropping what no longer works. Relevance isn’t a trophy. It’s a tab you keep paying.

Sources: Morning Consult, Sprinklr, SimilarWeb, Lyst Index, LVMH Earnings Report, WARC, Business of Apps, Edelman Trust Barometer, QSR Magazine, Kantar, Nielsen, HubSpot.

For those who know me, I tend to treat marketing like a cocktail party—equal parts clever, playful and unexpected. I reserve solemnity for things that actually warrant it: hospitals, courtrooms, hostage negotiations…maybe funerals. But even then, why let death spoil a perfectly good eulogy? So, no surprise—I have little patience for brands that think the height of luxury is whispering in a marble showroom.

It’s not that elegance is dead. It’s that playfulness, once taboo in luxury, is now a differentiator. And the brands that understand this are walking the line between exclusivity and delight—and cashing in on it.

Luxury has always had a bit of a God complex. Legacy brands were built on mystique, tight-lipped heritage and unapproachably smooth surfaces. But what once signaled value now risks signaling detachment.

A 2023 Bain & Company study found that 72% of Gen Z luxury consumers say a brand’s personality matters more than its exclusivity. Yet many brands still behave like we’re in 1992—launching products as if the internet doesn’t exist and smiling is beneath them.

Joy Is a Competitive Advantage

Take Loewe, the Spanish fashion house revitalized by designer Jonathan Anderson. Their balloon heels and pixelated clothes are as surreal as they are covetable—and their sales rose 20% last year, according to LVMH. The products feel like high-concept art school jokes with couture-level execution. That’s the formula: wit with weight.

It’s not just fashion. In hospitality, Baccarat Hotel in NYC blends crystal-dripping opulence with Instagram-bait maximalism. Their room revenue is up 18% from 2019, (Statista). Guests want elegance, yes—but also a little sparkle, a moment, a flex.

Even in design, India Mahdavi—the Iranian-French architect known for her candy-colored interiors—has earned cult status. Her redesign of Ladurée’s flagship salon in Paris swapped sugary pastels for bold jewel tones, mirrored walls and sculptural velvet seating, turning the iconic patisserie into a surrealist jewel box. It wasn’t just a facelift—it was a repositioning. According to WGSN, brands partnering with Mahdavi saw social engagement rise 43% between 2022 and 2023. She makes luxury that feels like dessert—rich, layered and impossible not to share.

Not All Mischief Lands

Let’s be clear: not every attempt at fun is a masterstroke.

Remember the Chanel $825 Advent Calendar? Released in 2021 to celebrate 100 years of No. 5, it promised luxury behind 24 glossy black-and-white drawers. What it delivered: stickers, keychains, an empty dust bag and a plastic snow globe that looked like a cheap department store giveaway. TikTok had a field day, led by influencer Elise Harmon, whose unboxing racked up millions of views and a collective gasp from Gen Z. According to Morning Consult, Chanel’s brand favorability among that demographic dropped 14% in the US after the backlash.

The problem wasn’t the concept—it was the execution: joyless, stingy and wildly out of touch with what $825 is supposed to feel like.

Then there’s the Rolls-Royce NFT drop—an attempt to dip a toe into the Web3 hype without offering anything tangible, useful or even particularly beautiful. It didn’t damage the brand outright but disappeared without a trace, like a press release nobody read. A 2023 YouGov study showed 44% of consumers now view brand collaborations and gimmicks as “increasingly desperate.”

Fun without intent isn’t fun. It’s just noise.

Consumers Want to Play—With Meaning

Jacquemus gets it. The French designer sells micro-bags that can’t hold a Tic Tac—and somehow that’s a strength. He turned a Paris fashion show into a lavender field fantasy and created a collection around inflatable pool toys. Yet his brand has one of the highest engagement rates on Instagram across all luxury fashion houses (Launchmetrics, 2023). Why? Because people aren’t buying function. They’re buying a vibe. And increasingly, that vibe is about being in on the joke.

Luxury homebuyers are changing too. A 2023 Houzz Global Trends report found that 47% of luxury homeowners under 45 described their design style as “bold” or “playful,” versus just 19% of Boomers. That generational shift is seismic.

Even Furniture’s Getting Funky

Interior design has caught the memo. Kelly Wearstler, the American designer behind Proper Hotels, fuses brutalism with whimsy—hotels designed for guests who Instagram their bathtubs.

Or look at Toogood, the London-based design studio founded by Faye and Erica Toogood, whose sculptural “Roly-Poly” chairs look like they belong in a Pixar film—but are priced and positioned as functional art. They sell out with waiting lists.

When Herman Miller, the American office furniture legend, collaborated with streetwear giant Supreme on a red logo-branded Aeron chair, it sold out in hours. That wasn’t about lumbar support. That was about cultural cachet.

The Future of Luxury Is Expressive, Not Impressive

Gen Z and Millennials will account for 80% of all luxury spending by 2030, according to McKinsey. This is not the era of quiet power. It’s the era of conspicuous delight.

A recent McKinsey survey found that 81% of Gen Z luxury buyers globally prefer brands with a sense of play. Not play as in childishness—but personality, story, contradiction. Something to connect to. Something to talk about.

Even The Macallan’s collaboration with Bentley wasn’t just about whiskey or cars—it was about shared craftsmanship and indulgent storytelling. The packaging, the narrative and the product all reinforced each other. It gave consumers something to drink, post and brag about.

Let the Others Keep Whispering

Let the solemn brands stay in their grayscale temples, worshipping at the altar of Seriousness with capital-S serif fonts. But don’t be surprised when the playful ones outsell, outbuzz and outlast them.

Because…fun isn’t the opposite of luxury. It’s the evolution of it. A brand that can make you laugh, spark delight or surprise you—and still charge $1,000 for it—isn’t diluting its value. It’s upgrading it.

And if they do it while wearing pixelated pants and drinking out of a crystal goblet shaped like a duck?

Even better.

Now that anyone can churn out halfway decent content using the same generative AI tools—and, yes, that still a pebble in my shoe—your brand’s tone of voice may be the last defensible edge. Not the tagline. Not the logo. Not the claims on the packaging. The voice. Because that’s what makes people feel something—and more importantly, what makes them trust you.

According to Edelman’s 2023 Trust Barometer, 81% of consumers say they must trust a brand to buy from it. And while we’re still obsessed with what brands say, more and more, it’s how they say it that’s doing the heavy lifting. So maybe stop trying to sound like you think a brand like yours should sound (you know who you are).  And start crafting a defining tone for your brand that truly fits its personality.

Confessions of a CopywriterI’ve written for brands as different from one another as Coca-Cola, Sony, Volvo, Lavazza and TABASCO, and hundreds more. Each one spoke in a completely different voice—and needed to. Coca-Cola had to sound effortless, global and warm. It was always smiling, even when it wasn’t saying much. Sony was polished and deliberate—sharp without being cold. Volvo needed to be calm, thoughtful and reassuring, with the kind of language that made every sentence feel like it was wearing seatbelts. Lavazza was expressive—every word punctuated with an Italian hand gesture. TABASCO didn’t waste words. It was as bold as its sauce.

Writing for these brands (in English, Russian or Spanish) wasn’t about finding the right words—it was about finding the right voice, every time. Sentence length, vocabulary, rhythm, punctuation—everything changes when the tone is doing the heavy lifting. It’s not unlike writing dialog for a film. The products may be similar, but the characters are wildly different—and each one deserves a script that actually sounds like them.

It’s Not a Style Guide. It’s a Strategy.

Here’s the truth: if your tone is just a line in the brand book between “Pantone Red” and “don’t stretch the logo,” you’ve just ticked a box.  You haven’t defined your tone.

According to a Nielsen study, brand consistency across touchpoints—including tone—can increase revenue by up to 23%. This isn’t about your witty tweets or poetic product blurbs. This is about consistent tone building credibility over time, whether someone is reading your chatbot, your invoice or your CEO’s keynote.

Take Monzo, the UK-based finance upstart. While most high-street banks still write like lawyers, Monzo speaks like a human being. That tone—clear, friendly and smart—helped it amass over 7 million customers, largely through word of mouth and user love. No jingles. No billboards. Just tone.

When You Can’t Outspend, Out-Tone

Brands with big voices often start small. Liquid Death, for example, sells water. Just water. But it wraps that water in a tallboy can and a tone that screams death metal and dark comedy. Its slogan? “Murder Your Thirst.” Its copy reads like it’s been possessed by the ghost of a punk band’s marketing intern. And somehow, it works—brilliantly. The company hit a $263 million valuation in 2023. 

Then there’s Duolingo, whose irreverent, unhinged TikTok presence is a masterclass in strategic insanity. It doesn’t sound like a tech platform. It sounds like your emotionally unstable roommate who’s also somehow great at languages. The result? A 44% year-over-year increase in monthly active users as of 2023.

Or consider Oatly, which turned oat milk into a lifestyle by speaking with anti-corporate sarcasm and the confidence of a college radio DJ with a marketing degree. They IPO’d at a $10 billion valuation in 2021—on the strength of tone, not just taste. When the product is a commodity, tone is what adds the premium.

How to Create—and Codify—Your Tone of Voice

So how do you create a voice that actually earns attention?

1. Define what you’re not.

Every brand thinks it’s “authentic.” That’s not tone. Tell me if you’re not formal. Not cutesy. Not sarcastic. Boundaries are where tone gets teeth.

2. Translate values into language.

If your brand stands for empowerment, how does it sound in a product update? If you’re about innovation, what does your FAQ page read like?

3. Build a playbook, not a paragraph.

Tone guidelines should be long enough to prevent disasters and short enough to be read. Include real examples: a tweet, a support reply, a hero banner. Avoid tone that’s defined by adjectives alone—“bold yet warm” means nothing until you see it in action.

4. Localize like a native, not a tourist.

Tone doesn’t travel without translation. It transforms. A joke that kills in English might offend in Spanish. A humble brag that lands in Russian might sound like weakness. Global tone means emotional equivalence, not linguistic one.

5. Train everyone, not just your writers.

If your social media intern writes like a comedian and your CFO posts like a Bond villain, your tone’s dead. Product managers, recruiters and chatbots all need to speak with one “voice”.

6. Audit and adapt.

Even great tone drifts. Especially when AI gets involved. Use online tools to keep the language in line. And if you do use AI? Train it on your tone—not someone else’s.

The AI Effect: Why Voice Matters More Than Ever

AI can write a paragraph in three seconds. But unless you’ve trained it properly, it’ll sound like everyone else.

Klarna, the Swedish fintech company, uses an AI assistant to handle two-thirds of its customer service chats. But that’s only because it was trained on the brand’s own language and customer history. Otherwise, your chatbot sounds like a polite alien who once read The Elements of Style.

As more brands pump out AI-generated content, the world is drowning in functional blandness. Tone is your only shot at standing out—and being remembered.

Final Word: If You Don’t Define It, You Can’t Defend It

Your brand will have a voice—whether you choose it or not. And if you don’t choose it, you won’t recognize it when it starts slipping out of your control.

In a world of infinite content, attention is expensive and trust is fragile. Tone of voice is your soft power. It’s how you earn attention without shouting. So speak easy. But sound unmistakably like you.

Marketing through movies offers a dynamic way to enhance brand visibility and consumer engagement. By aligning products with compelling narratives and popular characters, brands can transform their presence and achieve significant visibility.

It is estimated that more than 30% of movies now feature some form of brand affiliation. This trend highlights the growing importance of leveraging entertainment media to build brands.

Successful integrations, product placements, promotions and partnerships leverage the storytelling power of films to create memorable and impactful marketing campaigns.

The use of movie marketing to drive consumer engagement and commercial success can be a game changer for brands searching for new ways to connect with their audiences.

Directed by Greta Gerwig, Barbie emerged as a cultural phenomenon, thanks to an extensive and well-executed marketing campaign that took brand integration to the extreme with over 100 brand partnerships. Warner Bros and Mattel collaborated on a robust strategy that included co-branding and licensing opportunities. The film’s marketing efforts spanned various platforms and products, including Barbie-branded merchandise, digital content, and immersive experiences such as the Barbie Dream House on Airbnb. The movie grossed nearly $1.5 billion globally, significantly boosting Barbie merchandise sales and reinforcing the brand’s cultural relevance.

This illustrates how strategic marketing partnerships and product placements in movies can drive significant commercial success and cultural impact. By leveraging the storytelling power of films, brands can create immersive and memorable marketing experiences that resonate with audiences.

This week we’ll discuss the basics of movie marketing and provide insights into effective strategies for integrating brands into films. We will explore various approaches to movie marketing, including integrated campaigns, exclusive sponsorships, event-based promotions, charity collaborations, and organic product placements, highlighting successful case studies and best practices.

Though we may use Hollywood blockbusters in our examples, these strategies are also applicable to films of all budgets. In fact, smaller films are often much more amenable to creative partnering with brands to secure financing or maximize profitability.

1. Integrated Marketing Campaigns
Integrated marketing campaigns leverage multiple platforms and channels to create a unified and immersive brand experience. This approach ensures consistent messaging and maximizes consumer engagement by reaching audiences through various touchpoints.

For a fully integrated campaigns around movies, consider the following:
• Identify the Core Message: Align the campaign with the movie’s themes, characters, and narrative.
• Cross-Platform Engagement: Utilize digital, social media, and physical experiences to engage consumers.
• Collaborative Partnerships: Work with other non-competitive brands and platforms to amplify the campaign’s reach.
• Creative Content: Develop unique and engaging content that resonates with the target audience.
• Track and Optimize: Monitor the campaign’s performance across different channels and optimize strategies based on real-time data.

The marketing campaign for Barbie (2023) is a quintessential example of an integrated marketing approach. Warner Bros and Mattel executed a comprehensive strategy that spanned multiple platforms and included a variety of engaging elements:

• Themed Products: The campaign featured Barbie-branded merchandise, including clothing, accessories, and even a special edition Barbie Dream House. These products were available both online and in retail stores, creating a tangible connection with the audience.
• Digital Content: Extensive use of social media platforms such as Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube helped in reaching a broader audience. Engaging content like behind-the-scenes footage, character interviews, and interactive posts kept the buzz alive.
• Social Media Engagement: Influencers and celebrities were involved in promoting the movie, leveraging their followers to boost awareness. The hashtag #BarbieMovie trended across platforms, generating millions of impressions and extensive user-generated content. No to mention the fact that many of our collective memories from the summer of ’23 are bathed in Barbie pink!
• Physical Experiences: The Airbnb collaboration, which allowed fans to book a stay at a life-sized Barbie Dream House, provided a unique and immersive experience. This not only drove media coverage but also created a buzz among fans.

Integrated marketing campaigns around movies can create a powerful and cohesive brand experience, driving both consumer interaction and sales. By leveraging multiple platforms and channels, brands can maximize their reach and impact, ensuring a successful marketing strategy.

2. Exclusive Sponsorships
Exclusive sponsorships provide brands with a unique opportunity to align themselves with major film releases, ensuring extensive visibility and association with the movie. This strategy may not be as immersive as a completely integrated program, but still involves a deep immersion into the film’s promotional activities, creating a symbiotic relationship that benefits both the brand and the film.

Consider these steps when creating exclusive sponsorships with movies:
• Identify Alignment Opportunities: Find films whose themes, characters, and audience align with the brand’s identity and values.
• Negotiate Exclusive Rights: Work with production studios to secure exclusive sponsorship rights, ensuring the brand is prominently featured in promotional materials and activities.
• Develop Cross-Portfolio Activations: Create promotional activities that span various platforms and channels, maximizing exposure.
• Leverage Behind-the-Scenes Content: Use behind-the-scenes footage and exclusive content to engage audiences and provide deeper insights into the film and the brand’s involvement.
• Measure and Optimize: Track the performance of the sponsorship campaign and optimize strategies based on feedback and data analytics.NBCUniversal’s upcoming film Wicked, set to release in 2024, showcases a strategic use of exclusive sponsorships:
• Cross-Portfolio Promotional Activations: NBCUniversal’s pitch for Wicked involves extensive promotional activities across its various media platforms. This includes behind-the-scenes specials, interviews with the cast and crew, and featurettes that delve into the making of the film. These activities are designed to provide sponsors with broad visibility and an association with a highly anticipated film release.
• Streaming Partnerships: Wicked also involves partnerships with streaming platforms, ensuring that the film’s sponsors are featured prominently in digital content. This approach allows for extended reach, particularly among younger, tech-savvy audiences who consume content online.

By leveraging its vast media network and streaming partnerships, NBCUniversal ensures that sponsors of Wicked gain extensive exposure and are closely associated with the film’s success.

Sponsorship. Exclusive Sponsorship. Look no farther than The James Bond franchise for a prime example of decades of successful exclusive sponsorships:
• Aston Martin’s Integration: Aston Martin isn’t the only car brand that has been featured in James Bond films (BMW tried to usurp Aston’s dominance during the 90’s) but is certainly the moniker most closely aligned with the franchise. Its nearly ubiquitous presence has significantly boosted its image. The association with the suave and sophisticated James Bond character aligns perfectly with Aston Martin’s brand values of luxury and performance. Each new Bond film features the latest Aston Martin models, often showcasing the car’s advanced features and cutting-edge technology.
• Brand Boost: This ongoing relationship has not only enhanced Aston Martin’s prestige but has also contributed to its sales and market positioning. The cars used in the films often become iconic, further embedding the brand in popular culture and driving consumer interest.

Exclusive sponsorships in movie marketing offer brands unparalleled visibility and association with high-profile films. By aligning with major releases and creating cross-portfolio activations, brands can enhance their image, drive consumer engagement, and achieve significant marketing success – sometimes even making them an integral part of cinematic history.

3. Event-Based Promotions
Event-based promotions revolve around creating engaging and memorable experiences that connect the audience with the film and the brand. These promotions can range from contests and giveaways to themed events and immersive experiences, all designed to drive consumer engagement and product exploration.

Here a few tactics to consider when building event-based promotions around movies:
• Align with Film Themes: Develop promotions that tie directly into the themes and elements of the movie to create a cohesive and immersive experience.
• Engage Through Contests and Giveaways: Use instant win promotions, sweepstakes, and other contests to drive participation and excitement.
• Create Immersive Experiences: Host themed events, screenings, and interactive experiences that bring the movie’s world to life.
• Collaborate with Partners: Work with retailers, media partners, and other brands to amplify the reach and impact of the promotion.
• Leverage Digital Platforms: Utilize social media and digital marketing to promote the events and engage with a broader audience.

Yamaha’s promotion for Trolls World Tour showcases how event-based promotions can effectively drive consumer engagement:
• Instant Win Promotion: Yamaha created an Instant Win promotion for the Trolls World Tour premiere, offering a variety of prizes and exclusive experiences. Customers who purchased Yamaha Home Audio products had the chance to win daily prizes, including Yamaha audio equipment and a grand prize trip for a family of four to attend the movie premiere in Sydney, complete with flights and accommodation.
• Consumer Engagement: This promotion not only encouraged product exploration but also generated excitement and buzz around both the movie and Yamaha’s products. The combination of instant gratification through daily prizes and the allure of a grand prize experience drove significant consumer participation and brand engagement.

Hershey’s famous collaboration with E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial is a classic example of how event-based promotions can literally change the trajectory of a brand and significantly boost visibility and sales:
• Marketing Campaign: Hershey partnered with the producers of E.T. to feature Reese’s Pieces prominently in the film. This collaboration was supported by a marketing campaign that promoted both the movie and the candy. Hershey invested $1 million in advertising to promote the film, linking Reese’s Pieces with the heartwarming story of E.T. and his love for the candy.
• Sales Boost: The promotion resulted in a 65% increase in Reese’s Pieces sales during the movie’s run. The association with the beloved film not only boosted immediate sales but also cemented Reese’s Pieces in popular culture, demonstrating the lasting impact of well-executed event-based promotions. All of this was to the chagrin of Hershey’s fierce competitor, Mars, Inc. the maker of M&M’s, whom Steven Spielberg originally wanted to use in the film, but foolishly declined.

Event-based promotions are a powerful tool in movie marketing, offering brands the opportunity to create memorable experiences that drive consumer engagement and product exploration. By aligning promotions with film themes, engaging audiences through contests and immersive experiences, and leveraging digital platforms, brands can maximize the impact of their marketing efforts to significantly boost brand visibility.

4. Charity Collaborations
Charity collaborations in movie marketing not only enhance a brand’s image by showcasing its commitment to social responsibility but also create a positive association with the film. These partnerships appeal to audiences’ altruistic values, driving consumer engagement and fostering a sense of community.

Here are some guidelines to brands should follow to create charity collaborations around movies:
• Identify Relevant Causes: Choose charitable causes that resonate with both the movie’s themes and the brand’s values.
• Collaborate with Nonprofits: Partner with reputable nonprofit organizations to ensure the authenticity and effectiveness of the campaign.
• Develop Joint Marketing Efforts: Create marketing materials that highlight both the charitable cause and the collaboration with the movie.
• Engage Through Promotions: Use promotions, such as donations per product sold or special events, to drive consumer participation and donations.
• Measure Impact: Track the success of the campaign in terms of funds raised, awareness generated, and consumer engagement to assess its impact.

For the promotion of “Avengers: Infinity War,” Marvel Studios partnered with American Airlines and Stand Up to Cancer (SU2C). The collaboration included a powerful PSA featuring Marvel superheroes alongside real-life cancer survivors and SU2C researchers. This campaign aimed to raise awareness and funds for cancer research, showcasing the combined efforts of the entertainment, aviation, and charity sectors.

During the promotion of “Despicable Me 3,” Universal Pictures teamed up with General Mills and Feeding America. This campaign featured limited-edition cereal boxes with Minions and encouraged consumers to donate to Feeding America, highlighting how entertainment brands can support hunger relief initiatives.

These examples demonstrate how charity collaborations can effectively enhance a brand’s corporate social responsibility image while engaging consumers on a deeper, more meaningful level. By aligning with relevant causes and leveraging the power of popular films, brands can create impactful campaigns that drive both consumer engagement and positive social change.

5. Organic Product Placement
Organic product placement is the OG form of movie marketing where products are seamlessly integrated into the storyline. This approach subtly reinforces a brand’s image without overt promotion, making the product a natural part of the film’s universe.

In order to effectively utilize product placement in movie making, consider these obvious but essential points:
• Identify Natural Fits: Ensure the product fits naturally within the film’s setting and storyline to avoid feeling forced or out of place.
• Subtle Integration: The product should be a part of the characters’ everyday lives, enhancing realism without distracting from the plot.
• Leverage Key Scenes: Place products in pivotal scenes where they will be noticed but not overshadow the narrative.
• Maintain Authenticity: Avoid over-commercialization to keep the product placement authentic and believable.

In Avengers: Endgame, Audi cars were prominently featured, with Tony Stark (Iron Man) driving an Audi e-tron GT. This placement aligned with Tony Stark’s character as a tech-savvy billionaire and reinforced Audi’s image as a brand associated with innovation and luxury. The subtle yet noticeable integration helped promote Audi’s electric vehicles without overshadowing the film’s storyline.

In A Star is Born, a range of musical equipment and brands, including Shure microphones and Gibson guitars, were prominently featured. This organic integration enhanced the authenticity of the music scenes and helped promote the brands among both general audiences and music enthusiasts. The use of real, high-quality equipment reinforced the film’s credibility and connected with viewers who recognize these industry-standard products.

Organic product placement remains a powerful strategy in movie marketing, providing brands with an authentic way to connect with audiences. By integrating products naturally into the storyline, brands can enhance their image and visibility without distracting from the narrative. The success stories from these recent films demonstrate the enduring effectiveness of this classic marketing approach.

Effective marketing via movies involves strategic planning, creativity, and strong industry relationships. By aligning products with compelling narratives and engaging characters, brands can achieve significant visibility and consumer engagement. Larger partnerships offer even greater opportunities for integration and engagement, enhancing the viewer’s experience and creating lasting brand impressions.

The evolving landscape of product placement, especially with the rise of streaming platforms, offers new opportunities for brands to integrate seamlessly into entertainment content. This integration not only enhances the viewer’s experience but also solidifies the brand’s presence in popular culture.

Engaging professional agencies like Rose is crucial in navigating the intricacies of product placement. Our expertise ensures brand alignment and manages the various aspects of integration, sponsorship, co-marketing, and contracts to maximize the impact of your movie marketing efforts and effectively achieve your strategic goals.