According to The Wall Street Journal, Equinox’s new “Question Everything But Yourself” campaign, launching Monday afternoon, is deliberately packed with bizarre AI-generated images like a pole-dancing Justin Trudeau and a steak made of cake. The campaign, created with agency Angry Gods, is the first major project from Chief Marketing Officer Bindu Shah, who joined the luxury fitness brand just five to six months ago. Early teasers on Instagram and TikTok have already sparked significant social media chatter, with some commenters criticizing the use of AI as cheapening the brand and others wondering if Equinox had been hacked. Shah says the chaotic online reaction is exactly the intended purpose, serving as a setup to contrast the absurdity of online AI slop with the “real” discipline of an Equinox workout.
Provocation for the Sake of It
Here’s the thing: Equinox has a legacy of provocative January marketing, like last year’s move to ban new sign-ups on New Year’s Day. So wanting to get people talking isn’t new. But this AI play feels different. It’s less about a bold brand stance and more about jumping on a painfully trendy bandwagon. Shah insists the campaign isn’t “anti-AI,” noting they use AI for recommendations and programming. But that’s a weird defense. It basically says, “We use this tool responsibly behind the scenes, but upfront we’ll use it to generate lazy, low-quality memes to get your attention.” The contrast they’re going for—online chaos vs. real-world discipline—might be conceptually sound, but the execution risks looking just as cheap and disposable as the AI slop it’s trying to critique.
The Brand Dilution Risk
And that’s the real gamble. When your brand is built on luxury, exclusivity, and a promise of tangible, high-quality results, why would you anchor your marketing to the most notorious symbol of low-effort, low-quality content? The early social media feedback is telling: “This doesn’t feel like Equinox.” That’s a dangerous signal. A brand spending years cultivating an aura can undo it in a single campaign that feels off-key. Shah says the unresolved feeling is on purpose, that the full campaign will provide the clarifying contrast. But in the attention economy, first impressions are everything. If the first impression is “AI cringe,” a lot of their high-paying members might not stick around for the sophisticated payoff.
The Legal and Ethical Gray Zone
Then there’s the messy territory of using AI likenesses of public figures. Shah’s explanation is telling: “None of these are exact images. They are all generated off of things that are already out there.” That sounds like a legal justification waiting to be tested. Using a recognizable, albeit fake, image of Justin Trudeau in a compromising position without permission is a choice. Calling it “provocative” is one thing. But it could easily be seen as tacky or even defamatory. It’s a risk that seems designed more for shock value than for any coherent brand message. They’re playing with fire and hoping the buzz outweighs the potential burn.
A Conversation Starter or a Warning?
So, will it work? In the short term, sure. It’s got people talking, which was the bare-minimum goal. But long term, I’m skeptical. This feels like a brand trying desperately to be relevant in the online discourse, using the crudest tool available. The irony is thick: a brand selling real human transformation is using non-human, derivative imagery to sell it. The discipline of fitness is hard, nuanced, and personal. AI slop is easy, generic, and forgettable. Aligning your brand with the latter to sell the former is a confusing strategy. Maybe the conversation Equinox starts won’t be about transformation, but about what happens when a luxury brand accidentally makes itself look common.
