So… Why Does Your Brand Seem to Only Work with Skinny, White Influencers?
It’s 2025. We have AI that can write essays in seconds, people are literally planning recreational trips to space, and yet … some of the world’s biggest brands still can’t figure out how to put anyone but skinny, white women front and center in their marketing. Make it make sense.
From fashion to beauty to lifestyle brands, the pattern is hard to miss. Scroll through certain Instagram feeds or look at who’s getting the PR boxes, and you’ll notice it’s the same recycled image over and over again: thin, white, conventionally attractive women. It’s predictable, boring, and honestly, insulting.
Let’s talk about why this happens, why it sucks for everyone (not just the people being excluded,) and how brands need to get their act together, because in big ass year of 2025, there’s really no excuse. (Not that there ever was.)
The Brands Still Stuck in 2010
Some of the biggest culprits? Altar’d State, Lululemon, Lilly Pulitzer, American Eagle, Tarte, and Chanel.
Altar’d State: For a brand that positions itself as uplifting and inspirational, their influencer roster and campaigns are suspiciously one-note. If the “empowerment” you’re pushing only looks like one type of woman, who exactly are you empowering?
Lululemon: Yes, they’ll occasionally sprinkle in a model who isn’t a size 2, but let’s be real, their bread and butter is still aspirational, thin, white women doing yoga in $120 leggings.
Lilly Pulitzer: The brand of choice for pastel-loving, country-club energy… which pretty much tells you everything you need to know about their “aesthetic.” Diversity has never been their strong suit, and it shows.
American Eagle: To their credit, they’ve made some progress with Aerie and its no-retouching campaigns, but when you zoom out across their broader marketing? The default is still thin, white, and conventionally pretty. Any progress made was undone by the one, the only, Sydney Bernice Sweeney.
Tarte: Remember their influencer trips? The ones that seemed to feature the same group of influencers over and over again, almost like they were photocopied? Enough said. Don’t get me started on their shade ranges.
Chanel: High fashion is notorious for its exclusionary practices, and Chanel is no exception. Their campaigns cling to the same Eurocentric beauty standards that the fashion world has been called out for … decades now.
These aren’t tiny, no-budget brands figuring things out. These are massive companies with resources, influence, and the ability to hire literally anyone ... and yet, here we are.
Why It’s Ignorant (and Least of all, Bad Business.)
Representation isn’t a “nice-to-have,” it’s a must. When your campaigns only feature skinny, white women, you’re sending a clear message about who you value, and who you don’t.
From a human standpoint: people of all races, sizes, genders, and abilities exist. They buy your products. They deserve to see themselves reflected in the brands they support. If your “aesthetic” can’t handle diversity, your aesthetic sucks. Full stop.
From a marketing standpoint: (the least of all concerns,) you’re leaving money on the table. Consumers in 2025 are not blind. They want to support brands that reflect the real world, not just a tiny, filtered slice of it. Exclusionary marketing doesn’t just hurt the people left out, it makes your brand look outdated, out of touch, and unworthy of loyalty (but worst of all … RAAAACIST.)
“But It Doesn’t Fit Our Aesthetic”
Ah yes, the classic excuse. Some brands claim that diversity doesn’t “align” with their carefully curated vibe. Translation: they’re afraid to disrupt the same polished, lily-white, homogenous feed they’ve been running since 2013.
But let’s call it what it is: lazy, cowardly, prejudiced, and racist. If your brand identity is so fragile that including a Black woman, a fat woman, a disabled model, or a trans influencer would “ruin” it, then maybe the problem isn’t the model … it’s your brand.
A good brand aesthetic isn’t about sameness. It’s about storytelling, connection, and relatability. Newsflash: sameness doesn’t connect with anyone but the narrowest group of people.
Consumers Notice (and They Care)
Gone are the days when brands could skate by without being called out. Gen Z and younger millennials are hyper-aware of who brands choose to elevate. They’ll clock a campaign full of thin, white influencers and rightfully ask, “where’s the representation?” They’ll notice when your PR list looks like a Southern sorority roster.
When they do notice, and they will, they don’t just roll their eyes, they speak up. They tweet. They make TikToks. They call you out, and those posts often get more traction than the glossy campaign you spent six figures on.
Inclusivity isn’t just morally right; it’s smart (but most of all RIGHT.) Brands that continue to ignore this are digging their own graves in the long run (and frankly, being assholes.)
The Ripple Effect of Exclusion
The impact of these choices goes beyond marketing. When people never see themselves represented, it reinforces harmful ideas about who “belongs” in certain spaces.
A plus-size teenager who never sees models her size in Lululemon campaigns starts to believe she doesn’t belong in fitness spaces.
A Black woman who never sees her complexion represented in a Tarte campaign wonders if the brand truly considers her a customer, and wonders why her skin tone isn’t “good enough.”
A disabled person scrolling through endless “perfect” bodies never sees accessibility or inclusivity prioritized, when it’s not even that it “should be,” it ALWAYS NEEDS TO BE.
These aren’t small oversights, they’re decisions that reinforce exclusion and bigotry in society as a whole.
It’s 2025. Do Better.
At this point, there’s no excuse. The industry has been called out again and again. Countless brands have proven that inclusive marketing isn’t just possible, it’s profitable. Savage X Fenty built an empire on celebrating all bodies. Fenty Beauty exploded because it offered shades for everyone. (Go Rihanna.) Brands that actually reflect reality win big, because consumers are hungry for authenticity.
So why are Altar’d State, Lululemon, Lilly Pulitzer, American Eagle, Tarte, Chanel and MANY others still acting like it’s 2010? (Or even earlier?) Either they don’t care, or they think the rest of us won’t notice. Spoiler alert: we do.
Representation matters. Not just for clout, not just for sales, but because it’s about basic human dignity. When brands refuse to diversify their models, influencers, and campaigns, they’re making a statement, whether they realize it or not. And that statement is biiiiiiiiiig ugly.
The world is full of people of every race, size, ability, and identity. If your marketing doesn’t reflect that, you’re not just behind the times, you’re irrelevant, and you suck.
So to every brand still only showcasing skinny, white influencers: it’s 2025. Step it up. Because honestly? Your “aesthetic” isn’t giving what you think it’s giving.
