By The Spring 2025 Media Dilemma Students
Mango Faces Backlash Over AI Models in Fashion Ads
By Emily Ammon
The recent decision by fashion retailer Mango to use AI models in their latest advertising campaign has sparked controversy.
While the company promotes it as a new and pioneering move in the fashion industry, critics argue that AI models look fake, mislead consumers, and threaten human jobs.
The use of AI-generated use continues to creep into industries that once relied on human talent.
This makes us question: Is this really progress, or are we trading authenticity and ethics for the sake of efficiency?
Mango’s new campaign features AI-generated models displaying their Teen line’s limited-edition Sunset Dream collection.
Jordi Alex, Mango’s Chief Information Technology Officer said, “This initiative reflects our continued commitment to innovation and being on the cutting edge in the fashion world.”
Although this may seem innovative, it brings major concerns about the future of modeling and clarity in advertising.
One of the biggest issues with AI models is their unnatural appearance. Despite improvements in AI-generated imagery, these models still look artificial.
While the accessories in Mango’s campaign are real, “everything else is very, very fake” said ZME Science.
AI models commonly have an unnatural, almost plastic appearance that lacks realism and variety of human expressions and movement.
Consumers expect accuracy when shopping for fashion, especially when it comes to the looks and sizing of products, and AI models undermine that expectation.
While AI-generated images may work well for creative or futuristic concepts, they fail to replace real people in advertisements.
The fashion industry succeeds in ambitious marketing, people want to see models they can relate to, not something they know is not real.
Beyond their visual appeal, the rise of AI models presents an ethical issue which is the replacement of human workers.
Fashion models, photographers, makeup artists, and stylists are essential to a campaign’s success.
When companies replace these roles with AI, they not only eliminate jobs but also reduce the creative skill that human professionals provide.
Mango has faced a backlash over these concerns, with many scared that AI-generated models mark a move away from human talent.
The New York Post reports that Mango’s campaign has been slammed as “false advertising”, and that people worry about job losses in an already competitive industry.
The modeling industry has always been unstable, and AI models could make it even more difficult for human models to find work.
This trend isn’t just pointed to Mango.
Other fashion companies, such as H&M, have begun incorporating AI-generated models into their campaigns.
If this trend keeps going, it could change the fashion industry in a way that helps big companies but hurts workers.
The move to AI models also raises bigger ethical concerns.
The fashion industry is already under pressure over issues like fair pay, sustainability, and diversity. Adding AI to the mix just makes things more complicated.
The Guardian reports that more than 200 fashion models have pushed for laws to protect against job losses caused by AI images.
This shows the need for companies to think about the long-term effects of using this technology.
Instead of fully replacing human models, AI could be used in moderation. For example, using AI for small accessories or minimal digital art projects.
But relying on AI for entire fashion campaigns, especially for clothing and shoes could push consumers away.
AI in fashion is bound to happen especially in today’s day and age, but it needs to be used responsibly.
Companies like Mango should balance new technology with ethical responsibility.
Instead of replacing human models, they should use AI to enhance creativity, not replace real people.
As we move into a more digital world, we must make sure that progress doesn’t come at the expense of human jobs and authenticity.
Mango’s AI campaign might be just an experiment for now, but if other companies follow, it could change fashion advertising permanently resulting in both positive and negative outcomes.
Sexy Mayo?
By Bryan Avanzato
Have you encountered a billboard while driving? You certainly remember seeing a billboard promoting snacking.
Usually, it’s something straightforward, like a picture of a juicy burger, a bag of chips, or perhaps a brand-new flavor of soda.
However, not all of them are so easy. Some actually take an entirely different path.
Did you realize that we’ve even managed to sexualize the snacking industry in a world already overflowing with sexual content?
Snacking, indeed. One of life’s most casual, innocent experiences.
“Practice safe snacking… use a condiment” is the tagline seen on billboards for the condiment firm Mike’s Amazing Mayo.
I’m not here to serve as the joke police, though. Wordplay, a little cheeky humor I appreciate it.
However, this sort of advertising crosses a line that has grown more and more hazy. Why are we promoting mayonnaise using innuendos?
At first, it might seem like just harmless fun. A clever line, for a chuckle.
Taking a step back, however, offers us an important concern: why do we feel the need to utilize sexualized language or sex to promote products that are entirely unrelated to sex?
There’s a lot of messaging like this. It exists on our packaging, in our marketing materials, and on massive billboards that line highways and are viewable to people of all ages, including youngsters.
The shock value and suggestibility are regarded more highly than originality, content, or even common sense in this sort of marketing.
The larger picture is far more significant than this specific billboard. Like many other industries, the snacking sector has used sexualization as a marketing tactic.
But at what cost?
Examine the messages we portray. It might just be background noise to adults.
Yet, these messages impact the point of view of younger audiences. Even when sex appeal and innuendos have nothing to do with one another, they begin to link them to relationships, food, and self-worth.
It becomes expected and normalized. And it gets more difficult to question once it becomes the standard.
How about the irony? There’s no place for it.
You can offer delicious cuisine without using sexual innuendo. It should be enough if your product is truly exceptional, that is, if it tastes well, is composed of high-quality ingredients, and speaks for itself. You don’t need to wink and nudge to be creative.
There are many clever, humorous, and captivating ways to market without using low-cost strategies.
Ask yourself what the billboard is actually selling the next time you’re driving down the street and notice anything that makes you stop and think.
Is it merely a topping for sandwiches? Or does it illustrate the extent to which we have allowed marketing to flourish for the sake of attention?
Perhaps we should start thinking instead of laughing. Because mayonnaise only needs to taste good, not be sexy.
Murder Your Thirst: Liquid Death’s Controversial Advertising
By Ryan Butler
Liquid Death is one of those brands that makes you laugh and side-eye at the same time. It’s just canned water.
But they’ve wrapped it up in skulls, blood, heavy metal vibes, and slogans like “Murder Your Thirst”: And somehow, it’s working. They made hydration cool. They also made it a little questionable.
Let’s start with the obvious. Making water look badass is brilliant. We live in a world where sugar-loaded energy drinks get cool cans and flashy ads, and water usually gets some sad blue wave logo.
Liquid Death flipped that completely. You’re not drinking water because it’s good for you. You’re drinking it because you look and feel cool. It’s marketing 101.
But here’s the thing. They all went in on violence and absurdity. Severed heads? Blood splatter? Horror movie trailers for water?
It’s funny the first time, and then you start wondering if maybe we should stop making violence the punchline every time we want to sell stuff. Even ironically, it sticks in your brain.
Speaking of irony, it’s one of Liquid Death’s go-to when it comes to new campaigns. Their “sell your soul” campaign had you literally sign a contract to sell your soul for a free T-shirt or discount.
It’s hilarious, it’s clever, and it’s a jab at how gross marketing has gotten.
But – plot twist – it’s still marketing. They’re making fun of how brands trick you, while at the same time tricking you into buying more stuff.
They also lean hard on their eco-friendly angle. Aluminum > plastic, and that’s true. But let’s be real.
If you’re selling millions of single-use cans, you’re still adding fuel to the fire. Slapping a skull on a can and yelling “Death to Plastic” doesn’t erase the fact that mass consumption is mass consumption, no matter how you brand it.
And who’s really falling for it? Yeah, adults get the joke, but Liquid Death has real pull with teenagers and even kids.
Because when you make water look like beer and throw a bunch of “stick it to the man” vibes at it, younger audiences eat that up.
They’re not reading the fine print about environmental impact. They’re just seeing a brand that looks cool to wear and drink.
At the end of the day, Liquid Death proves that you can sell literally anything if you market it the right way. Mountain water becomes punk rock. Aluminum cans become a rebellion.
Your soul becomes a punchline. And the more we laugh at it, the less we realize we’re still getting played, just a little bit differently than usual.
Did Artificial Intelligence Steal Coca-Cola’s Holiday Magic?
By Sophia Lepore
The universal well-known soda brand, Coca-Cola, was dealing with some recent controversy this past holiday season because of using artificial intelligence.
The brand with generations of fans quickly showed disappointment when the release of their attempted remake of the 1995 “Holidays Are Coming” by turning to technology to make the commercial.
This recent advertisement not only created controversy about the brand not being creative or authentic but also caused controversy about how to use AI for advertisements.
For Coca-Cola and other companies this may be the beginning of a major impact for people who are artists and others who depend on creating Ads for brands and companies.
In November of 2024 Coca-Cola released their seasonal holiday commercial that was inspired by the beloved 1995 “Holidays Are Coming” advertisement, however the 2024 commercial did not get the same response and received a lot of backlash because the company used AI to help create it.
They worked with three different artificial intelligence companies Secret Level, Silverside AI, and Wild Card and used a few generative AI models which are Leonardo, Luma, Runway, and a new model called Kling to make the commercial.
This left major Coca-Cola lovers outraged and went as far as calling the commercial “soulless” and also argued that the use of artificial intelligence reduces job opportunities for artists and others whose livelihoods depend on creating content.
Due to the backlash, Coco-Cola made a statement claiming that they are always looking for new ways to make connections with their consumers.
Besides, fans of the soda brand being unhappy with the poorly made AI advertisement for one of the reasoning being that it took job opportunities away from people that livelihoods may depend on working on projects like this, but they were also not satisfied with the fact that it was a Christmas commercial.
The holidays for Coca-Cola are looked at as an important part of their brand and some consumers feel like they didn’t prioritize the importance of this advertisement, especially considering that last year’s holiday Ad was inspired by the 1995 commercial.
When doing further research into this, I was able to learn why consumers were so upset with this, it was because Coca-Cola helped create the image of Santa Claus.
In 1931, Archie Lee from D’Arcy Advertising Agency came up with the idea of putting Santa with Coca-Cola but wanted him to look realistic while also being symbolic, which lead them to hiring artist Haddon Sundblom to help bring this idea to life. Sundblom drew a lot of inspiration for the image of Santa from the 1822 poem “Twas the Night Before Christmas” by Clement Clark Moore.
From 1931 to 1964 Sundblom’s illustrations of Santa doing various things from drinking a Coca-Cola while reading a letter to delivering gifts to children that were shown in multiple advertisements.
There are multiple moral claimants for this Coca-Cola using artificial intelligence to make an advertisement, this is not only about the company Coca-Cola but for other companies as well that may use AI.
The most visible claim that I found was how this can cause job loss for artists and others who have a career in this field that depends on creating content brands or companies.
I understand why companies may turn to using AI to create advertisements for their brand, considering that it may be the cheaper option than actually hiring people to bring an idea to life, but this may also cause returning and potentially new customers to feel as if the company is not as authentic as they are portraying themselves.
I personally believe that they made a mistake by creating this commercial using artificial intelligence, especially since they were trying to recreate the 1995 commercial, they should have gone with using actual people to help give that warm and nostalgic feel that most people get round the holidays.
With technology becoming more and more advanced I think that there will be more companies leaning more towards using artificial intelligence to help create advertisements and content since they are less expensive and easier to work with.
Innovation or Job Replacement? H&M’s AI Models
By William Karwoski
Global fashion retailer H&M is making headlines in the fashion industry, with plans to create digital clones of real models for advertising their brand.
These ai models are designed to copy the actual appearance of the real models where they will be used across social media and other marketing campaigns.
H&M claims that this will streamline content creation and support the efforts of sustainability while keeping models involved by giving them compensation for the use of their digital likeness.
There are of course some upsides to the leap into the AI world.
First, the use of ai models will reduce the cost that are associated with photoshoots, with there being no need for makeup artists, stylists, and set crew.
The ai would also allow rapid customization, which will enable brands to display diverse and inclusive images on a large scale without the need of complex logistical planning of hiring multiple models.
As well as reducing travel, which can make it environmentally friendly, the industry is already being scrutinized due to its environmental impact.
Despite there being upsides to the use of ai models it also raises concerns in the fashion industry.
As this could cause major job displacement where there are already a scarce amount of long-term security.
Although H&M says models that are used to create these ai twins will be paid, there is an uncertainty whether the compensation will be equivalent to the pay they receive from regular modeling work.
And along with the lack of subtle emotions that real models can display in pictures, which in a way would possibly affect how the consumers connect with the brand.
While H&M is on the move towards this idea with the use of ai it could be the next big technological innovation.
But with this there’s the risk of undermining the job security of the real models they use for their advertising.
As the fashion industry embraces ai technology it should also assure the protection of job security.
How an Advertising Oversight Enabled Hate Speech
Trey Edmonds
What do the Super Bowl, Kanye West, and Antisemitism have in common? First, you may question how those three things have anything to do with each other, but there is one case in particular where these three collide in one of the most controversial advertising mishaps ever.
During the 2025 Super Bowl, Kanye West aired a commercial that initially appeared to be a simple promotional ad for his brand, Yeezy.
The ad prompted users to visit the Yeezy website to buy merchandise.
However, after the ad aired, users visiting the Yeezy website discovered that it was selling T-shirts featuring a swastika, the symbol most associated with the Nazi party and Antisemitic agendas.
Reports later revealed that Kanye had lied to the advertising agency responsible for the commercial and concealing his true intentions.
The ad agency was unaware of the merchandise Kanye was selling on the site that the ad directed viewers to visit.
The incident sparked reasonable outrage across media platforms, condemning West’s actions as a deliberate act of hate and antisemitism.
Major companies and media organizations quickly distanced themselves from Kanye, with the controversy leading to more discussions about the regulation of advertising content during high-profile events.
The controversy also raises several ethical concerns surrounding advertising practices. The first of which is deceptive advertising.
Kanye intentionally misled the ad agency and media networks by submitting a seemingly harmless ad while secretly planning to promote offensive material.
This lie reveals the need for stricter advertising vetting, especially during popular televised events like the Super Bowl.
Secondly, the promotion of hate Speech which includes Nazi imagery on Kanye’s website, is an explicit act of promoting hate, which can incite violence and spread dangerous ideologies.
The ethical dilemma lies in the balance between freedom of speech and preventing the dissemination of harmful content.
Thirdly, platform accountability involves calling into question the responsibility of these media companies and advertising platforms in vetting content.
Although Kanye’s ad initially seemed innocent, the controversy highlights the need for stricter oversight to prevent similar incidents in the future.
Finally, the social and cultural impact.
The historical significance of the swastika and its association with nazi genocide and hate. The controversy was deeply offensive to many communities.
Brands and advertisers have an ethical duty to ensure that their messages do not contribute to spreading harmful ideologies or offending certain groups.
This case underscores the importance of ethical oversight in advertising and highlights the risks that arise when public figures use advertising platforms irresponsibly.
Following this incident, advertising agencies should focus on who pays for the ad rather than just the ad itself.
Advertisers are responsible for conducting background checks on potential clients to ensure ethical, legal, and reputational standards are upheld not only for their clients but also for their own agencies.
This process may involve verifying that clients are following the law and not trying to promote harmful or misleading content.
The client should also align with the advertiser’s brand values, which could make potential background checks more seamless.
In specific industries with more strict regulations, like pharmaceuticals, finance, or gambling, this extra due diligence is especially important to avoid legal problems.
These industries are exceptionally touchy as they can involve a person’s well-being and must be taken much more seriously.
Promoting disreputable businesses can also severely damage an advertiser’s credibility and consumer trust, not just the business being advertised.
As part of responsible business practices, advertisers should research a client’s history, legal standing, and public reputation before entering a partnership.
Adverts take more time caring for themselves and how the public may view them rather than just the advertised client.
Carl’s Jr Continues with Their Sexists Commercials
By Braden Travaglini
Carl’s Jr. came out with their “all-natural burger” which is supposed to be a burger with fresh ingredients and fresh beef.
To promote this Carl’s Jr. released a commercial during Super Bowl 49 featuring Charlotte McKinny, a very attractive blonde actress. The commercial shows clips of McKinny walking around a farmers’ market naked as she picks up fresh vegetables and starts eating the all-natural burger.
In the commercial there are suggestive shots with strategically placed items over her body parts.
Also in the commercial is the line “She’s not the only one all natural”.
This line proves that Carl’s Jr tries to use sexism to sell their products and it’s evident in their advertising.
This line compares and treats women as burger which isn’t personally, morally or politically correct.
Today our society values fairness, equality and justice and Carl’s Jr does not represent these qualities in their ads.
Another example of Carl’s Jr using sexism in their ads was their “Hangover Burger” ad with Alix Earle.
In this commercial she models the burger as she takes bites of it and the guy stares at her eating in amazement while all around is flashing lights and bright sparkles from her red bikini and jean shorts.
The shots are put in slow motion as you get to watch her eat and then guys chase her with signs down the road as she drives away in a classic red sports car.
These commercials are ethically wrong because a society shouldn’t promote the sexualization of women because it’s morally and ethically wrong.
Utilitarian ethics tells us we must respect all humans regardless of gender and should be treated with respect and have equal human rights.
Women should be seen a people with worth and dignity and not just something for ones use.
This is also tied to the principle of respect for human dignity which tells us we must see individuals as humans with worth, rights and feelings.
We must treat women and all humans with worth, rights and feelings because that’s what we are.
As humans we are feeling beings with human rights and someone whose life holds value to the universe.
This ad is an ethical problem today because the sexualizing of women is against the norm in a society that values equality, fairness and justice.
This ad is also an ethical issue because it shows that Carl’s Jr doesn’t care about societal norms or being canceled.
This is evident because the “All-Natural Burger” commercial came out in 2015. Then in 2025, they released their “Hangover Burger” commercial.
Showing that even with the online criticism they faced for their 2015 ad, 10 years later they used the same exact strategy.
If Carl’s Jr wants to continue to sexualize women than I think as a society of fighting for equality, fairness and justice we should boycott Carl’s Jr until they change their advertising style.
But we have a social responsibility to call out people and companies when they aren’t being fair and equal otherwise, we will have a society that falls to oppression of whatever those people or companies are doing, which will push our societies progression backwards.
Balenciaga Ad Controversy
By Krayee Pour
Child pornography documents and a child holding a teddy bear bag with bondage paraphernalia are certainly not images you’d expect from a Balenciaga ad.
And yet, that’s exactly what appeared in two of the brand’s 2022 campaigns one featuring children in unsettling setups with BDSM-inspired teddy bears, and another that included court documents from a Supreme Court case on child pornography.
The backlash was swift and loud, and rightly so.
This wasn’t just a creative misstep, it was a disturbing failure to protect children involved in the ad and to recognize how deeply inappropriate the imagery was.
Balenciaga issued apologies and briefly pursued legal action against production partners, but the damage was already done. The trust was broken.
This situation raises a bigger issue that goes beyond Balenciaga: how are children being protected in industry?
Too often, the focus is on the shock value or artistic edge, while the well-being of child models takes a back seat.
There needs to be stronger oversight, clearer ethical boundaries, and more people on set especially parents, advocates, and child welfare experts who aren’t afraid to speak up when something feels wrong.
Children aren’t props, and they should never be used to pushing the envelope in ways that risk exposing them to harmful ideas or environments.
This controversy should be a wake-up call for the fashion and media industries to take accountability and do better.
We need to stop asking, “How far can we go?” and start asking, “Who are we putting at risk?
