The failure of hollow branding: truth, ethics, and relevance in today’s market

Nowadays, branding can no longer be reduced to a mere stylistic exercise: without truth, ethics, and consistency, brands are bound to collapse. A more discerning and critical public rewards authenticity and penalizes betrayal of trust, as evidenced by the Ferragni, GLS, and Abercrombie cases. The era of aspirational messaging is over: presence alone is no longer sufficient—relevance is essential.

How has branding evolved?

Contemporary branding often appears to be a discipline accessible to anyone, and perhaps for that reason, it risks creating more harm than value. In Italy, the communications sector is fragmented and unstructured, populated by agencies that outsource—and exploit—low-cost freelance labor. As a result, brands are often entrusted to temporary, loosely identified parties.

Moreover, those involved in branding rarely possess practical or academic training. When combined with the evolution of digital channels and the emergence of new media, the result is an industry adrift without direction (see also, provocatively, the article “The power of five-letter brands: myth or reality?“). Conversations increasingly revolve around creativity, aesthetics, and engagement, as if these were the only relevant factors. Yet creativity without substance is merely noise.

Branding is a complex system grounded in values, consistency, and vision. Still, it is frequently reduced to a series of visually appealing images, empty slogans, and narratives that dissipate at the slightest challenge. Communication must be treated as a discipline guided by rigor. As legal professionals, we focus on protecting brands—through trademark registration, action against campaign imitation, or parasitic conduct. However, at times, the asset in question is so insubstantial that one wonders whether protection should even be sought.

Apple, Nike, and Coca-Cola are often cited as examples of successful branding—and rightly so. What is often forgotten is that behind these brands lie exceptional products, meticulous strategies, and obsessively curated identities. What we perceive as “cool” has a well-founded rationale—rooted not in surface appeal, but in culture and systemic complexity. Effective branding reflects a clear positioning and a rationalized promise that the brand consistently upholds over time. Everything else, to quote the late Franco Califano, is just noise.

A particularly Italian case of superficial branding is Sasch. Remember it? A brand heavily reliant on appearance and its sponsorship of Miss Italia (250 mono-brand stores worldwide, 120 of which in Italy—as even Wikipedia points out ). It never developed a solid identity or embodied any notable values. When the public stopped believing in the beauty queen dream, it vanished without a trace. A cautionary tale for those who still think branding is about trends and aesthetics rather than substance.

What lies ahead? The same fate likely awaits brands that cling to being “green, inclusive, sustainable” without adopting a credible—and above all, serious—approach. Without substance, structured strategy, and a coherent identity, brand activism becomes mere woke-washing. The risk is not just reputational failure but also billion-euro fines from competition and consumer protection authorities.

Once, it was enough to spin an alluring story. Today’s audience, however, is more attentive, informed, and skeptical. Generations Z and Millennials judge brands not only by what they say, but by what they do.

Laura Tognon’s insightful work, “The effects of brand activism on Millennials and Gen Z: boycotting or buycotting?” (Master’s Thesis in Marketing and Communication, Ca’ Foscari University of Venice, Academic Year 2020/2021, Laura Tognon, Rel. Ch. Prof. Leonardo Buzzavo, Correl. Ch. Prof. Michele Tamma), illustrates this shift. New generations practice conscious consumption: they reward brands that authentically embody values (buycotting) and reject those perceived as hypocritical or opportunistic. Today’s audience no longer wishes to be seduced—they want something worth believing in.

This shift is irreversible. No, “Trumpism” will not turn back the clock. Whether we like it or not, the public is evolving.

The European Union is steadily steering the market toward greater transparency, quality, and accountability. New regulations on sustainability and corporate ethics are no longer just best practices—they are requirements for market survival (see: ESG and businesses: How to prepare for the “sustainable transition” – Canella Camaiora).

Yet many brands still believe a rebranding, a new logo, or an emotional campaign will suffice to regain relevance. They have failed to grasp that the age of superficiality is over.

Today, being present is not enough. Brands must be relevant. And to achieve that, companies must stop gazing into the mirror—and start looking within.

Truth as the cornerstone of messaging

Content quality is now more critical than ever. In an oversaturated landscape, where every brand competes for attention, beauty is no longer the differentiator—authenticity, usefulness, and meaning are. (Content creators might ask: should we be concerned if our posts get few likes? I addressed this in a piece on relevance)

A low-quality message not only risks going unnoticed but may also damage the brand’s reputation, conveying a superficiality today’s audience no longer tolerates.

But what does “truth” in branded content really mean? It is not about technical perfection. Truth lies in the brand’s ability to manage the objective qualities of its product—presenting it as it is and, when necessary, rethinking it before promoting it. Authenticity must precede charm.

If the goal is to meet the emotional, informational, or practical needs of the target audience, truth must come first. High-quality content is rooted in sincerity. The consumer must truly be given a choice. (I explored this further in: Will the EmpCo Directive on “green claims” change marketing?)

This transformation is being driven by consumers themselves. Accustomed to navigating countless online offerings, users have developed a keen sensitivity to promises that overreach and underdeliver.

“Claim your voice!“—but beware: brands that fail to deliver on their messaging with consistency and transparency risk more than being ignored. They risk public exposure and backlash. The criminal prosecution of Chiara Ferragni for aggravated fraud is the latest example: consumers no longer tolerate ambiguity on sensitive matters like charitable giving and commercial transparency. The Balocco “Pink Christmas” Pandoro and Dolci Preziosi Easter eggs cases highlight how trust collapses when there is a perceived disconnect between messaging and reality. (For more, see: “Unfair commercial practices: The ‘Pink Christmas Pandoro’ case” by Margherita Manca; and “Is Chiara Ferragni the scapegoat of the influencer marketing system?” on my LinkedIn. Coverage also appeared in Il Sole 24 Ore, January 28, 2025: “Chiara Ferragni to stand trial for fraud: hearing scheduled for September 23 concerning the Pandoro and Easter egg cases”)

Even more striking is the GLS case: fined €8 million by the Italian Antitrust Authority for greenwashing (see: AGCM – €8 million fine for unfair commercial practices, February 4, 2025). The company promoted “Climate Protect” as a sustainability initiative, but its environmental claims were vague and misleading. The public now demands more than eco-friendly slogans—they expect hard data, verifiable evidence, and alignment between declared values and actual brand behavior.

But branding is not only a matter of truth and transparency. Ethics and values matter as well.

The case of Abercrombie & Fitch is equally telling. Once a symbol of elitist, preppy beauty in the 1990s, the brand suffered a sharp decline when its discriminatory model was exposed and rejected. By 2014, the company had posted its eighth consecutive quarter of losses; its stock collapsed, and CEO Mike Jeffries resigned amid accusations of sexism and racism. (See: “Mike Jeffries resigns as CEO of Abercrombie & Fitch” – Il Post, December 10, 2014.)

Yet Abercrombie managed a remarkable comeback by embracing inclusivity, accessibility, and authenticity. It expanded its size range, made its campaigns more representative, and repositioned its brand to resonate with audiences that value substance over status.

The result? Eleven consecutive quarters of growth and renewed enthusiasm among Millennials and Gen Z. (Avvenire, Elisa Campisi, “Failed as a Snob Brand, Abercrombie & Fitch Reborn Through Inclusivity”, February 7, 2024.)

Investing in quality requires strategic choices—often sacrificing volume in favor of depth. (See also: “The ‘transparency mantra’ in the new IAP Digital Chart” – Canella Camaiora.)

These are not isolated incidents. Ferragni, GLS, Abercrombie—they form a constellation of cases painting a clear picture. The audience is changing. Brands must adapt before it’s too late.

Ethics is not a strategy. It is the only viable future.

Ethics is no longer a distinguishing trait—it is an essential prerequisite. While once leveraged for marketing purposes, themes like sustainability and inclusion are now expected to be embedded in the brand’s DNA. Mere declarations are no longer enough. Audiences demand coherence and tangible action.

It is no coincidence that many brands are now downplaying these themes in their communication. Not because they’ve lost importance, but because they’ve become so central that they need not be explicitly stated to be recognized. Indeed, referencing them without authentic integration into the business model may seem opportunistic.

Today, being present is no longer sufficient. The public is more aware, informed, and critical. If a brand does not genuinely embody its declared values, the audience will notice—and react accordingly.

This is not a passing trend but a structural shift in the market. Companies that cling to outdated communication formulas risk appearing disconnected from reality. Consumers want to see their values reflected—not to hear prepackaged rhetoric designed to sound politically correct.

The challenge for brands is not whether to embrace authentic ethics, but how to do so without falling into the trap of superficial marketing. Fewer slogans, more substance.

The era of aspirational messaging is over. Branding can no longer be about aesthetics or surface-level persuasion. It must become a tool for real dialogue—one that reflects societal complexity and promotes meaningful impact.

Those who fail to grasp this won’t merely lose market share. They’ll cease to exist.