Event-based marketing is a well-established means to garner attention, engagement, and excitement. Usually, it means linking a brand to a regularly scheduled sporting or cultural event, like the Olympics or Oscars. But one of the biggest events of 2026 was not regular in any way, and though it was carefully scheduled, few people knew what that schedule looked like. We’re talking about the wedding of Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce of course—an extravaganza that took over New York’s Madison Square Garden arena, as well as the attention of millions of fans.
To build a connection to this closely followed event, marketers thus had to get creative. Predictions that the wedding would take place at Madison Square Garden in Manhattan over the July 4 weekend leaked in the days leading up to it, but there were no official announcements. Instead, marketers had to move fast, once confirmation came.
The Knot, an online wedding service provider, took an early, and ultimately successful, gamble. It deployed mobile billboard trucks to drive in the vicinity of the arena, posting congratulatory messages while also displaying its logo prominently. For Swifties surrounding the Garden, it provided timely, relevant advertising that might lead those fans to associate their aspiration to celebrate with Taylor and Travis with The Knot, and thereafter think of the company first when imagining their own nuptials or celebrations.
Not every company could achieve such locational relevance though. Instead, Sephora hopped onto Instagram to raise a question that would resonate with any Swifties, and with its own products, namely, “But is she wearing a red lip to the wedding?” From its location in Brooklyn, the Barclays Center also took to Instagram, to propose itself as an alternative venue for weddings and private events.
Less well-known firms also took advantage of AI-enabled tools to adjust the congratulatory message that appeared on the screens outside the Garden once the wedding ceremony finished. Others created satirical videos, implying that their products or services had been selected to furnish the wedding or reception.
Finally, there were a few brands that could plan in advance and make a viable claim to a connection with the event. For example, the Dior luxury fashion house made sure that media outlets knew that both the bride and groom had worn clothing designed by the firm’s creative director. Being known as the company to dress Taylor and Travis establishes a priceless brand connection.
The event marketing strategies adopted in each of these examples thus vary, depending on the extent of connection they could create. Whether they had a metaphorical front-row view or seats in the nosebleed section though, savvy marketers refused to let such an opportunity go to waste.
Discussion Questions
When firms without any actual connection to an event suggest such a link, is it simply and exaggeration, or is it an ethical misstep?
How can brands design advertising strategies that enable them to respond rapidly to such a massive but secretive event?
Sources: Donna Kim and Sarah Lyon, “Taylor Swift’s Wedding Became a Marketing Moment for Brands, Big and Small,” The New York Times, July 5, 2026; Srividya Kalyanaraman, “The Swift-Kelce Wedding Is What the Luxury Market Needs to Revive,” Yahoo! Finance, July 7, 2026.
Competition is never static. Even if a firm might explicitly embrace a customer orientation, it also must account for competitive moves and strategies, to avoid losing some of its revenue or market share to another firm that releases a new offering or tactic. When it comes to the highly contested market for fast food customers, that demand is especially intense.
McDonald’s might account for an enviable share of the overall market, but it still needs to keep track of what other restaurants are doing, then respond appropriately. For example, Popeye’s—whose fried chicken sandwich introduction back in the early 2020s effectively redefined the fast food competitive landscape and initiated the “chicken wars”—recently made moves in two notable directions. First, it altered the available flavors, by introducing truffle-flavored menu items. Second, it shifted the form in which consumers could get their chicken, by releasing a line of chicken wraps.
Accordingly, McDonald’s announced two innovations of its own, seemingly reflecting the expanded flavor and forms being pushed by its competitor. First, it brought the toasted, caramelized flavor of brown butter to its breakfast menu. Two new breakfast sandwiches, one with bacon and egg and the other featuring chicken, carry the flavor in a honey-based sauce. Second, it created a variation on its existing formats by creating a Caesar-infused line of chicken strips, wraps, and sandwiches.
Notably, all these introductions reflect culinary trends that traditionally have been more associated with fine dining (e.g., brown butter, Caesar salads and dressing) than fast food. One argument suggests that, as prices rise across the board, fast food offerings need to give consumers a little more incentive to accept their higher prices. In exchange for paying more for their sandwiches, people expect to receive a small sense of luxury, even if they are just grabbing breakfast at the drive-through.
Discussion Questions
What factors in the marketing environment are evident drivers of McDonald’s new menu introductions? Would you describe its strategy as customer-oriented, price-oriented, competition-oriented, or something else?
Why is Popeye’s seemingly so often the source of new innovations that spark responses from larger competitors, such as McDonald’s? How would you explain this role?
Sources: Annie Campbell, “McDonald’s Just Quietly Released 2 New, First-of-Their-Kind Sandwiches,” Allrecipes, July 15, 2026; Tom Parfitt, “McDonald’s Adds 4 New Menu Items for a Limited Time,” Yahoo! Finance, July 22, 2026
Usually, when we talk about marketing familiar products, we might be referring to things that have been around for a while and have changed little, like soap or Corn Flakes. But what happens when the product being marketed is truly, legitimately ancient? Homer’s famous verse narrative of how Odysseus made his way home from the Trojan War likely was composed in the 7th century BCE, according to scholars, meaning that it’s been around for nearly 3000 years, during which time it has been read by millions of students, scholars, and poetry lovers. How can a marketer create excitement about a product that old and familiar?
Fortunately for publishers that maintain book versions of the epic poem, innovation arises even for ancient texts. Multiple translators have undertaken their own attempts to bring the ancient Greek text into modern languages, to make it accessible to today’s audiences. Because translation is inherently subjective, the different translations provide somewhat different approaches and versions of the text. For example,
In the 17th century, George Chapman crafted a deeply poetic, rhyming version that featured iambic pentameter.
Robert Fitzgerald published a version in 1961 that is widely familiar to students who have been assigned to read The Odyssey in their high school classes over the past half-century or so.
Emily Wilson’s 2017 translation has been described as “provocatively blunt” and modern in its approach. It also features iambic pentameter, and it gives far more voice to the female characters than previous translations have done.
When Daniel Mendelsohn released his translation in 2025, he “deliberately replicated Homer’s long lines and attended carefully to the poem’s metaphors, tone, level of diction and word choice,” seemingly in an attempt to make the experience of reading the text similar to what audiences in ancient Greece would have experienced.
All of these editions and releases prompted some attention and discussion, especially among scholars and lovers of Homeric poetry. But that was nothing compared with the hype surrounding the 2026 release of a film version of The Odyssey.
Directed by a well-reputed and well-known director (Christopher Nolan), starring some of the biggest names in film (e.g., Matt Damon, Lupita Nyong’o, Zendaya, Robert Pattinson, Anne Hathaway), and produced in a novel way (i.e., the first feature filmed with an IMAX 70 mm camera), the movie seemed destined to be a blockbuster. Recognizing this potential, the distribution company, Universal Pictures, began hyping and marketing the film more than a year before its actual release in theaters.
As anticipation among audiences grew, many of them realized that their familiarity with the famous story was weak or nonexistent. To prepare to watch, enjoy, critique, and discuss the film—all of which tend to be key to experiencing a cultural blockbuster—many consumers sought out book versions.
To cater to their needs, different book publishers have actively pushed and promoted their editions, using distinctive and creative tactics. For example, Picador delayed the release of an updated edition (which it previously had planned for 2025), featuring a new cover, forward, and afterward, waiting until just before the movie opened in theaters to install it on shelves. Penguin also reissued its version with a brightly colored new cover, depicting several of the monsters and characters made famous in the poem.
Beyond the packaging, publishers have purposefully highlighted and reinforced the distinctiveness of the different translations. W.W. Norton, which owns the rights to Wilson’s translation, noted the controversies surrounding her approach and encouraged buyers to host read-alongs and book clubs to not just read this version but also discuss why it might spark wider debate. Mendelsohn has been visible in the popular press, writing articles about the poem and the movie, which implicitly directs readers to buy his version, published by the University of Chicago.
Homer’s epic creates excitement on its own, which is part of why it persists as a classic story, told over millennia. But to convince consumers that a specific version of the poem is the best choice to purchase, marketers have to develop their own, specific type of excitement.
Discussion Questions
List the marketing strategies adopted by the different publishers of various editions of The Odyssey to get readers to purchase their version, rather than competing versions. Which seems most effective to you?
How have marketers seeking to sell different products (e.g., toy manufacturers, video game publishers) leveraged the popularity of other blockbuster films to garner excitement about their related offerings?
What kind of innovation are new translations of an ancient poem: radical, incremental, or something else?
There is a reason that Ben & Jerry’s can charge something like $8 for a pint of ice cream—or perhaps more precisely, there are several reasons. For one thing, the quality is good, offering inventive, unique flavor combinations, made of high-quality ingredients. The brand story, of two old friends who make ice cream together, is deeply appealing too. When many products seem faceless or bland, the likeable vision of Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield goofing around in their ubiquitous tie-dyed shirts to build a massively successful company creates a notable and appealing distinction. But perhaps the strongest motivation driving Ben & Jerry’s loyal consumer base is its insistent, persistent, overriding commitment to fair trade, environmentally friendly practices, and social activism.
From the moment they founded the company, Ben and Jerry have insisted that their business would advocate for such ethical purposes, and they have held firm to that ideal even as the brand has grown and changed its structure. In particular, when Unilever acquired Ben & Jerry’s in 2000, they agreed to the takeover only if the international conglomerate agreed that they retained the “independence to pursue [the founders’] values.” It was guaranteed in their contracts, which also permitted the subbrand to elect a board that functioned independently of its parent company. The founders retained control of public messaging and social activism.
The agreement held for several decades. But in 2024, the two founders initiated legal action against Unilever, alleging that it had adopted policy measures designed to circumvent its independent board. Then in 2025, they alleged that the Ben & Jerry’s CEO had been fired for his political speech.
But when Unilever decided to reorganize and consolidate all its ice cream holdings under a new subsidiary, Magnum Ice Cream, the ongoing tensions evidently grew too great to bear for Jerry Greenfield, who announced his decision to resign in protest. In a statement, Greenfield addressed the rumors head on and issued the clear assertion that “Ben & Jerry’s has been silenced, sidelined for fear of upsetting those in power.” Ben Cohen shared the resignation statement on social media, backing his partner’s stance, but thus far, he has decided to stay on at the company, from which position he continues to voice his social values. He also recently called on Unilever to allow the Ben & Jerry’s to regain their independence, by having the conglomerate divest.
Discussion Questions
Why might Cohen and Greenfield have chosen different paths in reaction to Unilever’s actions, despite their continued support of one another?
Weighing the current negative press that this issue has generated, especially amongst Ben & Jerry’s core customer base, against the overall profitability of the brand, does it make sense for Unilever to allow the company to divest? What external factors might further tip the decision in one direction or the other?
Sources: Yan Zhuang, “Jerry of Ben & Jerry’s Resigns, Saying Company Has Been ‘Silenced’,” The New York Times, September 17, 2025; Rabia Iclal Turan, “Ben & Jerry’s Co-Founder Jerry Greenfield Resigns, Citing Unilever’s ‘Silencing’ of Brand’s Activism,” Anadolu Agency, September 17, 2025; WCAX News Team, Amanda Alvarado, “Jerry Quits Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream Over His Political Views,” WOWT, September 17, 2025.
Although consumers have grown very accustomed to purchasing subscriptions for many offerings, such as streaming entertainment content or computer programs, those pricing models mainly involve services. What happens when a product firm seeks to establish a subscription model?
If we go by Volkswagen’s recent experience, what happens is that the firm gets blasted by consumers. In the course of introducing its ID.3 electric series, the German automaker announced that its Pro and Pro S models would come with an optional subscription, meant to unlock added features that could add to the cars’ performance. That is, rather than hedonic, comfort-based add-ons like seat warmers, the subscription would allow drivers to access more engine power and sportier handling.
The announcement drew immediate ire from customers, who decried the “Netflixication” of their vehicles. The backlash on social media featured both angry and humorous takes; one user predicted satirically that if carmakers really want to make money, they might want to consider using subscription plans to allow owners to start or stop their cars.
But Volkswagen doubled down in response, offering a fuller justification for its new payment model. In a public statement, it provided a positive cost comparison, noting that the features might be available without a subscription in other carmakers’ vehicles, but those models were substantially more expensive than the ID.3 line. The company also suggested a different frame for viewing the subscription innovation: Rather than a limitation on the car’s existing features, it represented optional upgrades to people who wanted to pay more to drive faster or with better handling.
The pricing plans started at around $22 per month, though buyers who purchased an annual plan received a slight discount. For those buyers uninterested in thinking about regular renewals, Volkswagen also provided the option of a one-time upgrade: For about $900, they could permanently unlock the full range of features available in their current cars. This purchase would not transfer to any future vehicles.
Even as Volkswagen devised a range of pricing plans in its apparent attempt to appeal to drivers’ diverse preferences though, it may have missed the bigger picture, which seems to depict a consumer market that is tired of encountering additional fees or subscription requirements that keep bumping up their monthly expenses. The presence of subscription demands currently might evoke buyers’ growing suspicion that even more fees are on the horizon. These broader attitudes could introduce yet another set of challenges to the widespread adoption of electric vehicles, such that Volkswagen’s decision to introduce this feature on its new line of electric offerings might have been detrimental.
Discussion Questions
What are some other long-term implications, positive or negative, of implementing a subscription model for automotive features?
Could Volkswagen have communicated about this pricing model change more effectively? How would you design a communication strategy that might mitigate consumers’ negative reactions?
Sources: Mandela Namaste, “Volkswagen Sparks Backlash with Unheard-of ‘Subscription’ Plan for New Cars: ‘Isn’t That Illegal?’,” Yahoo! Finance, September 12, 2025; James Paul, “Volkswagen Draws Flak for Introducing Subscription on Top Speed,” Mashable India, August 19, 2025; “Volkswagen Wants You to Pay a Monthly Fee … for More Horsepower,” 104.5 WOKV, August 18, 2025.
Promoting travel has been a primary, and lucrative, target for social media influencers. Aesthetically gorgeous destinations provide a compelling setting for any content, though they also demand a lot of money, first to reach and then to stage the sort of large-scale, impressive photoshoots that garner attention. For influencers to make careers out of their travels, they need to leverage key insights to craft compelling content, give followers unique insights into how they too could experience diverse cultures, and, in most cases, convince local tourism operators to sponsor their trips. When they combined these elements, successful travel influencers with large followings were earning more than six figures for a single post, and famous celebrities could make ten times that amount for posting sponsored content.
But even savvy, experienced influencers are struggling to maintain their previous levels of success, and the culprit, as may come as no surprise, appears to be AI. Near the end of 2024, traditional travel content creators started reporting sudden declines in the range and number of sponsorship deals available. The deals they could find also promised lower pay-per-post rates, even for influencers who could point to their past success and vast number of followers.
In their place, travel companies and locations turn to AI-generated avatars that appear in realistic-looking posts, the costs for which can be as low as just $500, though a fully functional, custom avatar might cost more like $5000. Still, these rates are exponentially smaller than the cost of paying human influencers. Furthermore, the brands gain a valuable level of control, in the sense that they can mandate precisely what a digital persona says, whereas human influencers might be expected to adjust the script to reflect their own goals and brand objectives.
This growing presence of AI spokespeople also spans multiple tourism-related sectors. Qatar Airways’s avatar Sama posts sponsored travel content across all the airline’s media channels. The German Tourist Board employs a digital stand-in named Emma that virtually visits and promotes the country’s most popular destinations. Accordingly, a new market has arisen, populated by management firms that create their own digital influencers and solicit sponsorships for them. For example, the travel blogger Radhika, created by a creative management agency based in India, quickly attracted a sizable following that led to contracts for her content from various tourism operators throughout India, and thus a lucrative, stable source of income for the management firm.
Although Radhika has attracted a substantial audience of followers, who appear perfectly willing to overlook the somewhat artificial quality of her appearance and contrived tone of her branded content, traditional human creators might take heart in recent reports. Specifically, most consumers continue to express some wariness toward AI, unwilling to trust it completely. In one survey conducted in Australia for example, more than three-quarters of respondents indicated their sense of hopefulness about the possibilities of AI, together with a parallel sense of skepticism about its ability to function as the sole source of information and inspiration. Such reactions imply that AI content creators and traditional human influencers might coexist, in which case competition for the budget and perks available to travel bloggers could intensify even further.
Discussion Questions
Tourism content created by human influencers involves high innate costs, which might drive brands’ rapid adoption of AI influencers. What other economic sectors similarly might benefit from the relative cost savings provided by AI influencers?
As AI-generated content becomes more lifelike and harder to differentiate from human-generated content, will it be possible for traditional influencers to compete? What would have to happen for these creators to maintain their jobs? That is, what unique value can or should human influencers make sure they offer?
Sources: Julie Weed, “These Travel Influencers Don’t Want Freebies. They’re A.I.,” The New York Times, December 9, 2025; “AI Travel Influencers Begin Reshaping Digital Storytelling,” Digital Watch Observatory, January 21, 2026; “AI vs Influencers: Which Is More Trusted for Travel Recommendations?,” Karryon, July 31, 2025.
Speed, agility, and dexterity define great athletic ability. They also appear equally important for advertising ability. When brands can react promptly and flexibly to constantly changing consumption trends and culturally relevant opportunities, they can achieve remarkable success and outperform their competitors, just as athletes attempt to do each time they play.
The need for such marketing dexterity has always existed, but as a result of modern technological developments, brands have remarkable new opportunities to display such nimbleness. In noting this development, a group of advertising experts has proposed the notion of fastvertising, a marketing strategy that involves the rapid development and distribution of clever responses to cultural events in real-time. By releasing a creative reaction to a pertinent event almost immediately, brands can garner additional impressions, earned by exploiting the chatter that surrounds the event itself but also by demonstrating their own cleverness and ability to join in on the fun.
An early example of fastvertising gave Oreo cookies a remarkable brand boost. The Super Bowl is consistently one of the most watched sporting events in the world, and advertisers spend millions to have their brands featured for mere seconds during the broadcast. But during Super Bowl XLVII, just after Beyoncé had finished her thrilling halftime show, the New Orleans Superdome went dark, having suffered a massive power outage. For 34 minutes, players wandered the field, spectators sat in the dark, viewers at home wondered what was happening—and Oreo’s social media team took to Twitter to promise that the sandwich cookies could be enjoyed regardless, with the line, “Power out? No problem. You can still dunk in the dark.” For the millions of curious viewers, who likely had turned to their mobile devices searching for an explanation for the outage, the rapid, humorous response represented a novel appeal. The tweet reached more than half a billion people within minutes.
Even if responsiveness and dexterity have long been advertising goals, and even if this example of fastvertising is more than a decade old, brands still struggle to achieve such success. Corporations are notoriously slow to approve new ideas, as well as particularly loath to spark any sort of controversy. To embrace fastvertising, they cannot simply update their advertising strategy; they must challenge the logic that underlies typical marketing recommendations to design and release advertising content only when it appears guaranteed to improve, or at least not undermine, the brand’s current position. In this view, doing nothing is better than doing something wrong. But a fastvertising approach takes the view that any reaction is better than none, as long as it is driven by a particular sort of intelligence that combines emotional appeals and humor with a clear understanding of current cultural moments.
Notably, among the authors of the team credited with coining the term, we find an unexpected name. Rather than another scholar, the team includes the actor-turned-entrepreneur Ryan Reynolds (aka Deadpool), who is widely known for his quick wit and edgy, borderline inappropriate humor. When promoting brands in which he has investment stakes, Reynolds consistently deploys those characteristics, and because he has substantial ownership shares, he can undertake such deployments rapidly, without having to wait for permission, approval, or sign-offs from large corporate structures.
For example, when Peloton released a holiday commercial in which a man gifted his female partner an exercise bike—and viewers responded in horror, calling out the brand for sexist views and identifying the protagonist as a hostage to a red-flag relationship—Reynolds seized on the moment. He hired the female actor who received the terrible gift in the Peloton advertisement to maintain her characterization and play the same role in an advertisement for his gin brand. Seen sitting in apparent shock, surrounded by friends animatedly trying to talk her out of the relationship and “exercise cult,” the actor took a sip from a drink. Peloton was never mentioned by name, but the reference was clear, and the cheeky voiceover at the end, voiced by Reynolds himself, promised that an “exercise bike is not included.”
But as we noted, flexibility and responsiveness remain key, and Peloton clearly learned that lesson when dealing with the blowback to its advertisement. Therefore, when it confronted another public relations disaster, due to an unfortunate product placement event, it was better prepared to exhibit its own fastvertising. Peloton had agreed that its products could feature in the Sex and the City spinoff show, And Just Like That…. But unbeknownst to the brand, the product would be featured as implicitly responsible for the death of Mr. Big, a popular character whose heart attack appeared brought on by his workout on a Peloton bike. Rather than accept such a problematic narrative link, Peloton took a page from Reynolds’s playbook and hired the actor who played Mr. Big to appear in brand advertising, in a loose continuation of his star role. As the character reemerges, a rapid voiceover by (of course!) Ryan Reynolds outlines the health benefits of cycling and insists that Mr. Big actually is alive and thriving, because he remained dedicated to his heart-healthy workouts.
Again, the quick-witted response was lauded, as was the timeliness of the punchline. In this particular iteration of fastvertising, the campaign acknowledged the importance of the character to the series, and the shock expressed by fans of the show when he died; the serious harm that the original feature could cause the Peloton brand, by creating an implicit connection between product usage and mortal danger; and also the slightly ridiculous quality of the whole situation, in which no one actually died.
As these collected examples show though, sometimes effective advertising, or fastvertising, can contribute to the life or death of a brand. Like players who have reached the Super Bowl or regular people trying to complete a difficult Peloton routine, being fast and nimble can be the winning formula for brands.
Discussion Questions
Can you think of other examples of fastvertising that you’ve seen? What made them successful, or not?
Why would Peloton choose to work with Reynolds, after he had run a campaign that mocked its marketing in the past?
Sources: Ayelet Israeli, Leonard A. Schlesinger, Matt Higgins, and Ryan Reynolds, “Marketing at the Speed of Culture,” Harvard Business Review, January 2026; Li Cohen, “Star of Viral Peloton Commercial Appears in New Ad—This Time for Gin,” CBS News, December 17, 2019; Nick Turner, “Peloton Fires Back with Chris Noth Ad After ‘Sex and the City’ Damage—Spoiler, He’s Alive,” Financial Post, December 13, 2021.
Laws governing the use of social media, designed to limit access by minors, have been enacted in several countries recently (see the abstract “Australia Bans Social Media for Children Younger than 16 Years,” from June 2025). Although gaming platforms technically are not subject to this legislation, Roblox has decided to introduce age verification for all users in the region, seeking to reduce the risk that children enter into interactions with unfamiliar adults. The rollout will include not just Australia and New Zealand but also the Netherlands, whose Authority for Consumers and Markets has raised concerns about Roblox’s compliance with the EU Digital Services Act. The verification system requires copies of official identification cards, along with a selfie of the user to confirm their identity. The technology then sorts confirmed participants into age-specific categories and limits certain features and interactions for younger participants. Although Roblox already had established parental controls, filtered chat requests, and conducted automated monitoring of messages, it also has come in for consistent criticism, along with several lawsuits, for its failure to enforce age verification requirements. Allegations of child endangerment are serious concerns for a platform on which an estimated one-third of accounts, or about 40 million users worldwide, belong to consumers younger than 13 years of age. In announcing the new system, Roblox described it as a “signal of trust” and called on potential development partners to take similar steps. But the platform’s choice to introduce the verification initiative only in regions that already have imposed new age-based regulations raises some skepticism of the trustworthiness of its own intentions.
Sources: Jenny Gross, “Roblox, Where Kids Game and Chat, Will Analyze Their Faces to Verify Age,” The New York Times, November 21, 2025; Charlotte Van Campenhout, “Dutch Regulator to Probe Roblox Over Risks to Minors,” Reuters, January 30, 2026.
There once was a time that dressing to exercise meant putting on clothes uniquely suited to the gym. If you were wearing sweatpants, you were exercising, and no one would dream of wearing sweatpants to grab lunch. But then athleisure trends took hold, while in parallel, technological advances in clothing materials introduced new, slimmer silhouettes. Thus, it became common to encounter people clad head to toe in Lycra or spandex, in nearly every arena of daily life.
Such casual apparel certainly has its appeal for many consumers, but the specific cuts associated with form-fitting gear do not sit, or fit, well with everyone. Embracing the goal of comfort, Gen Z is reinventing gym gear yet again, calling for baggier cuts, a wider range of options, and stylish alternatives that support their desire to make their carefully crafted look appear effortless.
Proponents of looser fits cite the sense of freedom they gain from deviating from prescribed athletic uniforms, as well as greater flexibility to take comfortable clothing from the streets to the gym without needing to change. Moving away from skin-tight clothing also supports ethical goals for greater inclusivity, and some feminists embrace the shift as a way to establish a clear rejection of the male gaze in favor of wearing whatever makes people comfortable, while doing strenuous physical activity.
Predictably, labels are taking note. Major brands have rushed to introduce new cuts and draping. Even Lululemon has slowly shifted away from its usual figure-hugging silhouette. But even as these trends are spreading, detractors claim the entire discourse is just one more reactionary pushback by Gen Z against all things Millennial. These users brought up Gen Z’s insistence on parting their hair in the middle rather than on the side, or preference for baggy jeans over skinny, both of which seemingly took hold overnight, and became a way for the younger generation to mock older Millennials.
As always, the echo chamber of social media has only amplified the discourse, making the voices on both sides of the conversation especially loud. But perhaps the solution is so boringly simple, it was easily overlooked: Everyone should just wear whatever they want.
Discussion Questions
Is the loose clothing trend likely to persist, after the initial discourse dies down?
How should brands like Lululemon, known for tighter silhouettes, adjust to changing trends? Should they completely pivot to cater to current preferences?
Sources: Madison Malone Kircher, “Millennials and Gen Z Are Fighting Again. This Time About Gym Clothes,” The New York Times, March 17, 2025; Destinee Scott, “Gen Z Is Ditching Millennials’ Favorite Workout Wear-Here’s What They’re Buying Instead,” PureWow, April 18, 2025; Kirsty Thatcher, “Leggings Are Out, Parachute Pants Are In: The Rise of Baggy Activewear,” RUSSH, August 29, 2025.
