
Yep, you gotta love when brands co-opt something that was once meaningful…
…strip it of all depth, polish it up nice and pretty, and slap their logo on top. See: companies that use beautiful cream and sage packaging to signal “eco-friendly,” brands that put rainbow flags everywhere (but that’s where it ends), and now Pandora, which has taken Keith Harign’s artwork (borne out of political protest and activism) and put it on bracelet charms. It just screams "let’s sanitise the heck out of this and just make it cute.” Yeah, let’s actually not. [Read more]
- Charlotte Ellis, Editor ♡
WHAT’S HAPPENING IN MARKETING TODAY?
Meta victim blames in court, Disney is into slop & Massive KitKat heist ruins Easter

Y’all, Meta never fails to surprise me.
The "how low can you go" question sinks deeper into a new pit of hell every time I read a new headline. I only just heard that the parent company of Facebook and Instagram tried to victim-blame its way out of the recent landmark social media addiction lawsuit, that alleged it products caused personal injury to a young user.
The mental health issues that the 20-year-old suffered were not because of exposure to harm on Insta. Instead, it was her mother's parenting and offline social issues, or so Meta’s lawyers and PR team argued. Anyway, that failed to sway the jury, obviously, who decided 10-2 Meta was guilty AF and designed a product that induced body dysmorphia and self harm. They awarded the victim over $5m in damages. Hopefully, this sets a precedent for the thousands of trials already in the works for similar cases.
I also just read that Disney still wants to find a way to peddle AI content, since the OpenAI deal is off. In a statement to the trade, the company explained “we appreciate the constructive collaboration between our teams and what we learned from it, and we will continue to engage with AI platforms to find new ways to meet fans where they are while responsibly embracing new technologies that respect IP and the rights of creators.” Seems the mouse isn’t going to stop the slop anytime soon.
Finally, KitKat posted an official statement to their Instagram that, I sh*t you not, I thought was one of those stupid ads disguised as press apology things. Because what do you mean 12T OF KITKAT PRODUCTS WERE STOLEN in a HEIST in transit between central Italy and Poland!?? 413,793 units. Of chocolate. Planned and executed.
“We’ve always encouraged people to have a break with KitKat,” said Nestlé. “But it seems thieves have taken the message too literally and made a break with more than 12 tons of our chocolate.” At least they’re being lighthearted. However, it may end up causing a shortage right before Easter, yeowch.
-Sophie Randell, Writer
DEEP DIVE
Brands are squeezing the life out of everything, and Keith Harign's ghost is furious.

I read an article by the BBC today about Keith Haring and it hooked me.
Mostly because over the last few years, I’ve seen his artwork fkn everywhere. The only thing is, Keith Haring died of AIDS complications in 1990.
"His brilliance is in danger of being diluted," the title read. And you know what, I’d have to agree.
Keith Haring spent his final years creating radical art about HIV activism, safe sex education, and queer liberation. His work was protest. Political. It was explicitly, urgently about the AIDS crisis devastating his community.
Thirty-six years later, his kinetic pop art adorns H&M hoodies and Uniqlo T-shirts. Pandora sold charms, necklaces, and rings using his designs with messaging about vague concepts like inclusivity and diversity.
…with zero mention of his activism. They extracted the aesthetic and erased the meaning. Santisation like this is a whole f*cking problem.
So, we’re gonna chat about it.
How brands profit from radical art while gutting the message.
The Keith Haring Foundation distributed over $5.7 million in charitable grants in 2024. These went to supporting organisations helping those involved in HIV/AIDS education, prevention, and care. The brand collaborations funding this work make Haring's art accessible. Which is something that very much aligns with his belief that art is for everybody.
But accessibility without context is literally just commodification.
When Pandora described their collection as inspired by principles of inclusivity and diversity without mentioning why Haring created that work (HELLO, his queerness, his activism, his death from a disease the government ignored), they turned radical protest into palatable product. The aesthetic survives. The depth gets erased.
This pattern is everywhere.
Rainbow capitalism does the same thing every damn June. Brands slap rainbows on products, sponsor Pride parades, and market themselves as LGBTQ+ allies. All while funding anti-LGBTQ+ politicians.
They commodify queer identity into bland consumerism, stripping Pride of its radical roots as protest against police brutality and systemic oppression. Same with February for Black History month. The performance of allyship replaces actual advocacy. And the aesthetics of solidarity become profitable while the substance gets discarded.
Feminist slogans get printed on fast fashion made in sweatshops. Black Lives Matter becomes brand messaging from companies that don't even employ Black people in leadership. Environmental activism gets co-opted by corporations greenwashing their way through climate destruction.
Why this matters beyond marketing critique:
When brands extract the aesthetic of radical movements while erasing the actual meaning, they actively dilute the movements (not to mention profit dishonestly lol). Pride becomes a depoliticised party instead of urgent and necessary protest. And Keith Haring becomes cute squiggly designs on a tee instead of AIDS activism.
Revolution merely becomes content.
Younger generations encounter these sanitised versions first. They see rainbow products and assume that's what allyship looks like. Or they see Haring's art divorced from context and miss the entire point of why he created it and the history gets buried under merchandise.
And meaning - actual meaning, the kind worth fighting for - gets warped through commercial exploitation until it's unrecognisable.
We allow brands to squeeze the life out of things because we've accepted that everything eventually becomes product.
Art, activism, identity, struggle - all of it gets flattened into marketable aesthetics emptied of substance.
Keith Haring established his foundation a year before he died because he knew his work had purpose beyond pretty pictures. That purpose - HIV/AIDS education, queer visibility, radical accessibility - still matters.
But you wouldn't know it from the Pandora collection. That’s erasure, babes. And that aint cute.
-Sophie Randell, Writer
TREND PLUG
I want your things in my room

Today’s viral trend comes from the a TikTok with Julia Wolf and Guy Cooper.
In the clip, Julia Wolf is singing “I want your things in my room” from her song "In My Room." Then Cooper suddenly cuts in and sings in this really high-pitched voice while she just looks annoyed. Cooper is known for showing off his vocal range in public. And it can get pretty chaotic and unhinged, which is why a lot of his TikToks go so viral.
People are using this trend to show those moments when you’re singing or talking and someone just jumps in and you can’t help but join them. For example, “Me when I hear someone humming a tune I know” or “When you’re singing and your sibling has to hop in and ruin your vibe.” Loads of them are about siblings or mates messing things up, because someone always has to interrupt and turn a calm or emotional moment into something awkward and funny.
How you can jump on this trend:
Grab the audio and lip sync as either Wolf or Cooper, depending on the way you want to play it. In other words, pick whether you're the one getting interrupted or the one causing the chaos. Have fun with it and make it as funny, dramatic or completely unhinged as you like.
A few ideas to get you started:
When you're thinking of a song and your coworker starts singing it out loud
When you're scrolling on your fyp and your brainrot coworker knows every sound
When I'm explaining a campaign strategy and the client jumps in with "let's make it go viral!"
-Fiona Badiana, Intern
FOR THE GROUP CHAT
😂Yap’s funniest home videos: Maybe they're out of Ice cream? :(
❤How wholesome: This hug would heal me
🎧Soooo tingly: $1 mic VS $100k mic
🍝What you should make for dinner tonight: 20min Chili Oil Vodka Pasta
ASK THE EDITOR

Do I need a website? I was just focused on our socials, but a lot of our customers don’t use social media very much. -Andres
Hey Andres!
If you are trying to reach people who are not on socials very often, then yes, you absolutely still need a website (especially now that people are using AI tools for search—not just Google). These models rely on clear, trustworthy website content to pull answers from. So when it comes to creating web content, the focus should be shifting from SEO to GEO (generative engine optimisation).
Focus on creating a homepage that clearly explains who you are and what you do. Make sure you also include a few evergreen pages that answer the real questions your customers are asking. Clear site structure, FAQs, and structured data all help AI crawlers read and understand your website. There's obviously a lot that goes into GEO, but starting here will set your website up to be discoverable, as you don’t want to rely on social media alone.
- Charlotte Ellis, Editor ♡
Not going viral yet?
We get it. Creating content that does numbers is harder than it looks. But doing those big numbers is the fastest way to grow your brand. So if you’re tired of throwing sh*t at the wall and seeing what sticks, you’re in luck. Because making our clients go viral is kinda what we do every single day.
