Gucci's AI promo backlash: a wake-up call for brand marketers
Gucci used AI-generated images to tease its upcoming Milan Fashion Week show. The posts were labeled "created with AI," but the response was split: some praised the "Milano glam," others called it "AI slop."
The critique cut to the core of luxury positioning: if you celebrate craftsmanship, why swap human models and photographers for prompts and pixels? One comment summed it up: "Bleak days when Gucci can't find a real human Milanese grandmother to wear an outfit from 1976."
What happened
The brand rolled out stylized AI portraits on social, ahead of its Friday runway in Milan. While transparent labeling helped, many saw the work as cost-cutting at the expense of authenticity.
It's not Gucci's first tech-forward moment. The house has previously commissioned digital artists, sold AI-inflected visuals as NFTs via Christie's, and released an AI-generated runway video. Other brands, from Valentino to H&M, have also experimented with generative tools for social and ads.
For context on the week Gucci is building into, see the official Milan Fashion Week hub by Camera Nazionale della Moda Italiana: Milan Fashion Week. For background on luxury's earlier NFT experiments, here's a primer from Christie's: NFTs explained.
Why this matters for brand marketers
- Authenticity tax: Luxury trades on scarcity, craft, and human touch. Generative images can feel off-brand if they replace those signals.
- Quality bar: Even "good" AI visuals can read as generic. If it looks like stock, expect "slop" comments.
- Cost optics: Cutting production spend is rational. Signaling that cost-cutting to consumers is not.
- Creative ecosystem: Sidelining photographers, stylists, and models can trigger industry pushback and fan the narrative that the brand devalues craft.
- Labeling ≠ acceptance: Transparency helps compliance, not perception. The story still has to land.
Industry voices
Dr Priscilla Chan warned that while novel tech stunts can earn free positive press, AI can just as easily drive negative attention. Luxury brands, she said, need to judge whether the tech actually creates a positive image.
Photographer Tati Bruening said she's generally not a fan of full image generation, but sees a place for non-invasive uses like retouching, small edits, or mood boards. She also noted Gucci may be provoking a debate about what luxury means now-more commentary than couture.
Use AI without burning brand equity: a practical playbook
- Define safe use-cases: Enhancement (retouching, cleanup, layout options, alt crops), not replacement (models, photographers) for premium campaigns.
- Set a "human first" rule: Anchor campaigns in real talent, real materials, and behind-the-scenes craft. Let AI support, not star.
- Quality gate: Build a visual TQ (taste/quality) checklist: skin textures, hands, accessories, stitching, lighting consistency, cultural cues. Zero tolerance for artifacts.
- Signal intent: If the work is satire or commentary, say it upfront in the caption. Don't make fans reverse-engineer the message.
- Pilot and sentiment-check: Test AI assets in limited markets or whitelisted influencer posts. Watch comments, saves, and DMs before scaling.
- Cost optics plan: If AI replaces a traditional shoot, offset with visible investments in artisans, community, or craft content.
- Credits matter: If human creatives guided prompts, credit them. It reframes the work as directed design, not low-effort output.
- PR pre-mortem: Draft responses for "AI slop," "job replacement," and "authenticity" critiques. Decide who speaks and where.
- Legal basics: Confirm training data policies of tools used; avoid likeness risks; lock usage rights and disclosures in vendor contracts.
Decision checklist before publishing AI creative
- Does this asset reflect our brand codes better than a real shoot could?
- Would our core fans proudly share it, or roll their eyes?
- Are we replacing human craft in a context where craft is the point?
- Is the AI usage clearly disclosed in a way that fits the story?
- What's our response if "AI slop" trends under the post?
Measurement plan that keeps you honest
- Baselines: Compare saves, shares, and positive comments to your last three similar posts.
- Sentiment: Tag comments by theme (authenticity, craft, cost-cutting, aesthetics) and track ratio shifts.
- Brand lift: Run a small lift study on "quality," "authentic," and "worth the price."
- Press and creator signals: Log pickups by fashion media and feedback from photographers/stylists. Their read influences culture.
- Holdout testing: A/B AI-led vs human-led visuals for the same concept. Kill what underperforms.
Context by brand tier
- Luxury: Use AI sparingly, as enhancement or conceptual art with clear intent. Overuse erodes perceived value.
- Premium/mass: More room to experiment, but protect flagship lines and hero campaigns.
- Youth-driven/street: Experimentation is expected, but the work still needs taste and a story.
Action items for your team this week
- Audit where AI touches creative today. Label each use as enhance, augment, or replace.
- Publish a one-page AI guardrail for brand, creative, and PR. Add approval steps for high-visibility posts.
- Prep a short "why we used AI here" caption template for transparent storytelling.
- Line up a creator roster (photographers, stylists, set designers) to pair with AI tools for hybrid shoots.
- Set up social listening for "slop," "cheap," and "fake" keywords tied to your brand.
- Level up the team's skills on risk-aware communications: AI for PR & Communications
Bottom line: tech can expand your creative range, but only if it deepens your brand's truth. If the tool makes the work look cheaper-or makes fans feel unseen-don't ship it.
Your membership also unlocks:
