MAD//Fest co-founder and NDA columnist Dan Brain shares how a conversation at a kids party led him to think that AI is driving a race to the bottom in luxury marketing.
It’s funny how everyday life can change your perspective. Last weekend, I was on the party scene again at yet another 5 year old’s birthday shindig.
There I was, chatting about why the school LEGO Club is harder to get into than Berghain and enjoying a sneaky cocktail sausage amid the sugar-fuelled carnage, when suddenly I got into a conversation about AI with one of the mums.
It turned out that the person I was talking to was a hair stylist. She’d recently made the decision to open up a studio as the (more lucrative) luxury fashion shoots were becoming less frequent. Why? Because of AI models – as in AI generated humans with nice hair and clothes, not nerdy computer models.
I hadn’t fully appreciated the domino effect of AI in marketing fashion and luxury products. And it got me thinking – is this really a smart move for those brands?
Until this point, I’d always thought of hair styling being one of the more AI-proof jobs. In fact, the London College of Style says that the most resilient jobs in the age of AI are those requiring “empathy, intuition, listening, and trust” – like taking creative control of someone’s beloved barnet and gaining enough trust to unleash a pair of scissors.
First up, a confession of fashion faux pas. My idea of luxury is splashing out on a fancy bag of Taste the Difference chantenay carrots for the Sunday roast at the local Sainsbury’s.
The only D&G I own is commemorative shot glass from my wedding (where Dan & Gemma tied the knot over copious volumes of limoncello).
I buy most of my clothes from the range of branded merch down the local pub. I see little need to upgrade my £15 Casio watch to a Patek Philippe (it’s unlikely to improve my timekeeping).
When I get around to getting a haircut, I’m grateful I’ve still got functioning hair follicles at 43. I’m thankful that the process takes about 10 minutes and costs £15 down the Kurdish barber (although now that I think of it, £1.50 a minute suddenly feels a bit like calling a premium rate phone number).
My head spins at the fact that Bicester Village is considered one of the UK’s top tourist attractions.
There’s magic in luxury brands
But whilst I might not be the target market for luxury, I am in awe of the value and appeal of these brands. They’re ambitious, aspirational and ostentatious.
Kate Moss and Calvin Klein, Giselle and Chanel, David Gandy stripping down to his grundies for any brand with enough cash and cameras – they’re iconic and emotive cultural moments etched into our memories, even for fashion fuckwits like myself.
They do a magical thing – creating a sense of desire and exclusiveness that’s strong enough to convince otherwise sane people that it’s a good idea to buy a handbag that costs as much as a deposit for a small flat in Manchester. And I have to admit that Justin Pearse’s dapper Kurt Geiger shoes do exude grace, elegance and style when he’s on-stage at MAD//Fest.
Historically, luxury and fashion brand campaigns have had healthy creative and media budgets. However, the category has faced economic challenges of late (cost-fatigue, slowdown of the Chinese market etc). Hence why cheaper content appears to be en vogue (some reports claim fashion marketing budget cuts to be as much as 80%).
But there’s a flaw in this approach – it effectively lowers the bar and allows new competitors in via the back door.
AI is driving efficiency. But are there any winners?
I can see why these numbers stack up on a balance sheet. But is anyone other than a few tech companies that can deliver passable creative on the cheap and possibly a few challenger brands that get lucky really better off here?
Consumers don’t feel warm to AI generated content – let alone AI models.
Kobe Millet’s groundbreaking work on “the illusion of effort” at Vrije Universiteit is a great example of this.
Millet showed a sample of 800 people two near identical creatives of a skull, both drawn by a human. However, one image was labelled as AI created, the other hand-drawn. How did reactions differ to the drawings? The AI version ranked 48% poorer for artistic integrity.
Perhaps more importantly, when it came to purchase intent, people who thought they were looking at an AI image said they were 38% less likely to buy the product than those who thought they were looking at a human-crafted creative.
Flooding fashion and beauty advertising with efficiency motivated AI efficiencies is unlikely to deliver the sense of luxury that people crave. Are price-sensitive consumers getting a fairer deal? The controversial launch of Prada’s £650 Indian sandals (they’re made in Maharashtra, India rather than Milan, Italy and the brand has also been accused of cultural appropriation) would suggest not.
Incidentally, Prada uses AI in its marketing for things like image generation, although its CMO, Lorenzzo Bertelli, optimistically thinks AI will ultimately enable businesses and society to value “people who work with their hands”).
It also sounds like risky business for the cherished brands who have built equity and market position, often over centuries. Thinking out of the spreadsheet and in the real world, is reducing costs and lowering the barrier to entry a smart move in the long run?
If advertising is shifting from the art of persuasion to the art (and science) of emotion, attention and memory, why would major brands reduce the emotive impact of their campaigns?
Sure, use AI to deliver enhanced and augmented experiences, but fucking with the humanity attached to your brand to save a few bob sounds like a race to the bottom to me.
Agencies get squeezed, freelancers lose out on gigs, media is overtaken by cheaper, less distinctive (and probably less effective) ads. The list goes on.
Can fashion and beauty re-discover its rebellion?
You might say “yeah, but you can’t fight a fundamental category shift, so you might as well pocket the cost savings and figure out some creative ways to stay relevant”. Fair cop.
Will anyone zig whilst others zag and point blank refuse to use AI models? Well there’s a few, actually.
Lingerie brand Aerie has made a no-AI promise (the announcement was the brand’s most liked Instagram post of 2025). Although Unilever does use AI-generated product images for Dove – the world’s most awarded brand – it has continued its commitment to “Real Beauty” by pledging never to use the technology to create images of women.
Victoria’s Secret stepped away from an AI campaign fearing a backlash. Others like Valentino and J. Crew have faced fierce criticism for their use of “cheap” AI.
Perhaps the analogue marketing trend, whose proponents include the likes of Heineken, Polaroid and Le Creuset, is a flash in the (incredibly posh) pan as AI reaches boiling point. But what if it isn’t?
Who’s got the chutzpah to boldly put their money where their mouth is and buck the AI trend?
Who has the creative bravery to bring humanity back to marketing luxury, beauty and fashion?
Who is going to roll the dice and defy an emerging category convention?
The optimist in me says there is a bold, brilliant and creative brand out there somewhere that can turn the tide and ensure that fashion stays fashionable.
