When J.Crew rolled out a series of old-school, catalogue-style ads on Instagram earlier this month, it likely hoped nostalgia would do the heavy lifting. But instead of sparking sneaker envy or nostalgic impulse purchases, the campaign triggered outrage over the company’s quiet use of AI.
The ads, in partnership with Vans, featured men biking, painting and strolling in the sneakers and on the surface, they all look above board. However, the focus quickly shifted from the shoes, with followers quickly identifying the telltale signs of AI intervention: a backward-facing foot, stripe inconsistencies in sweaters, and inexplicably vanishing shoelaces.
View this post on Instagram
The backlash was swift. “Undisclosed AI-generated imagery isn’t remotely what I’d expect from a respectable heritage brand like J.Crew,” wrote one Instagram user. Another dismissed the images as “AI slop.” Others accused the brand of using AI to simulate diversity rather than paying real models: a “multibillion-dollar company invents an AI black man to save money. That’s so gross.”
The most stinging criticism came from consumers who saw the move as a hollow gesture toward representation. “Hire a Black model instead of denying one a job by using AI,” read one comment.
Another likened the decision to “blackface,” accusing J.Crew of commodifying Black identity without employing real people.
To many, the campaign showed how AI can be misused to commodify identity, borrowing the appearance of diversity without engaging real people or communities.
“So they want to commodify Black representation, but not pay a real Black person for their likeness,” one user argued. “The idea of a white ‘AI artist’ plugging in a historically oppressed identity into their prompt, but no one from that community receiving any compensation is wild and dark.”
B&T contacted J.Crew for comment but did not receive a response prior to publication.
Authenticity Under The Microscope
The accusations highlight a broader tension. In industries where representation is a critical component of cultural relevance, swapping real people for machine-generated approximations risks not only ridicule but also reputational damage.
Speaking to AdAge, Rob Wrubel, managing partner of Silverside AI said that “particularly in fashion or beauty where authenticity, product fidelity and the model itself come under much higher scrutiny in terms of ‘Is that a real person showing that product?’ ‘Is that really the product?”.
These categories, he pointed out, have “higher standards and thresholds for the consumer to feel safe and good about the brands’ expression.”
Rebecca Swift, global head of creative at Getty Images, added that the product, and by extension, the people who wear it, should always be the focal point. “Generative AI is best used to enhance a creative idea, bringing a story to life in a way that feels fresh without pulling the spotlight away from the brand itself,” she explained.
Recent research suggests that brands risk alienating their most valuable audiences by leaning on AI without proper disclosure. A 2024 IAB and Sonata Insights survey found that only 38% of Gen Z and millennial consumers feel positive about AI-generated ads, compared to 80% of ad industry executives.
That tension is playing out across the industry. Guess faced criticism this summer for creating an AI model for a Vogue ad and Coca-Cola’s AI-powered holiday spots were blasted as “soulless”.
What’s clear is that AI in advertising isn’t going away. J.Crew itself has previously championed AI as a way to improve shopping discoverability, with chief intelligence officer Danielle Schmelkin calling it a powerful tool for attaching more attributes and synonyms to products online in a panel at SXSW in Austin. However, when technology transitions from a backend utility to front-facing creativity, the stakes rise sharply.
For a brand like J.Crew, which one commenter recognised as “once a creative beacon”, AI without disclosure risks undermining trust.
