Caught in the Culture Wars—or Cashing In?
On a random Monday morning, somewhere between mile one and boredom, I look up at the gym TV and see a headline that almost makes me miss a step: “Brands are caught in the middle of culture wars.” Katseye’s Gap campaign flashes, followed by Sydney Sweeney’s American Eagle ad. I actually laughed—because in 2025, outrage isn’t a byproduct of marketing. It is the marketing
The term “culture wars” sounds heavy—like something reserved for politics or history books. But lately, it’s been happening in our closets and comment sections too (just like politics but that’s another conversation coming soon).
Culture Wars, but Make It Fashion
By definition, a culture war is a conflict between groups—often liberal and conservative—with opposing social values, ideals, or beliefs. But in the beauty and fashion landscape of the 2020s, culture wars have taken on a different form.
They play out not just in politics, but in aesthetics: through hairstyles, clothing, and even “it-girl” trends that become battlegrounds for identity, representation, and power. Every outfit, campaign, or viral TikTok becomes a statement about what society values—and who it chooses to center.
Some of the most defining “culture war” debates in beauty and fashion today revolve around quiet luxury, trad-wife agenda, I mean aesthetic, inclusion and representation, and of course, denim and good genes.
Naturally, brands noticed. And in true marketing fashion, they didn’t just join the conversation—they turned it into a campaign.
After 2016, “purpose-driven marketing” became every brand’s favorite phrase. Activism was suddenly in—and authenticity, performative and genuine, sold. Rihanna’s Fenty Beauty launch in 2017 redefined inclusivity overnight, forcing brands to rethink what diversity looked like on shelves. Within months, every company had a “mission”— cruelty-free, sustainable, LGBTQ+ and BIPOC supportive and inclusive. For a while, it felt like progress. Who wouldn’t want to buy from a brand that shared their values?
That wave of purpose-driven branding taught companies one thing: attention equals allegiance. But when authenticity got expensive and outrage got cheap, the strategy shifted—from mission statements to manufactured moments.
Somewhere along the way, sincerity—or the allusion of it—got replaced with spectacle. Instead of joining conversations, brands began creating controversy, turning outrage into engagement. Or what is now known as rage-baiting.
Rage-Baiting: Lazy Marketing or the New Reliable?
Welcome to age of outrage marketing. In 2025, nothing spreads faster than fury—and brands know it. Rage-baiting has become the algorithm’s favorite fuel: post something polarizing, watch the comments flood in, and enjoy free press disguised as discourse.
The first and biggest outrage moment that I can easily recall was Pepsi’s 2017 Live For Now campaign starring Kendall Jenner. The outrage was so loud and lasting, it’s still referenced to this very day. Since then, over the years there seems to be an influx of brands aiming for that drama and discourse, by any means. In 2023, Youthforia was a hot topic in the beauty space, going viral for the backlash surrounding its Date Night Skin Tint Serum Foundation. The line originally featured 15 shades, lacking shades that match deeper skin tones. Popular and well-renowned influencer, Golloria George, reviewed their initial darkest shade in her TikTok series The Darkest Shade. In that, she made a statement about the darkest shade being lighter than what was advertised online and in their marketing. In March of 2024, the brand added 10 additional shades to the Date Night collection, which consisted of majority deeper shades. Like many brands, it takes criticism for them to get it right, so Golloria gave their brand a second chance and tried their new darkest shade. Let’s just say there wasn’t a difference between black paint and the foundation. The outrage was something that lasted nearly all year. The lack of depth in shade range is nothing new with beauty brands, and let’s just say consumers were fed up. We’re in the 2020s and not being inclusive with shades or being performative with a false shade range isn’t acceptable anymore, and at this point if you’re still doing it—it’s obvious that it’s for outrage to increase brand engagement.
Then came the denim discourse.
American Eagle’s campaign—titled “Sydney Sweeney Has Great Jeans”—wasn’t just cheeky wordplay. It was calculated. After an election year steeped in body politics and “traditional values”, the messaging felt too pointed to be coincidence. The outrage wasn’t a surprise—it was the strategy.
Weeks later, Gap debuted its campaign featuring the global pop girl group, Katseye—a celebration of diversity, youth, and global femininity that many read as a not-so-subtle clapback. Whether Gap was genuinely celebrating inclusivity or simply capitalizing on the backlash aimed at American Eagle, one thing was clear: even the “responses” are marketing now.
Somewhere along the way, brand activism became just another tool in the PR kit—outrage now sits right beside “engagement” and “reach” on marketing dashboards.
