Are AI Influencers Like Slate Brands’ Iris Lane The Future Of Social Media?

People are befriending artificial intelligence bots, but being influenced by them on social media? That appears to be a bridge too far for many.

On Tuesday last week, Slate Brands, the incubator behind men’s skincare brand Insanely Clean and fragrances from Brooke DeVard, Tracy Anderson and the Murillo twins Briana and Brittany, dismantled the digital footprint of Iris Lane, a fake perfume influencer it dreamed up with AI, after the fragrance community on TikTok erupted in opposition to its presence on their feeds.

Although Elise Grenier, the fragrance content creator with the handle @eliselovessmells, believes it’s pretty clear Iris Lane was AI-generated (her mouth movements didn’t match her words), she thinks the fragrance influencer-bot is just the beginning of an invasion of AI content creators. Still, she’s not worried about the Iris Lanes of the future taking her job.

In a TikTok video from Monday last week, she says, “While it would be very easy for AI to do my job, part of the appeal of being a content creator is people want to follow a real person. So, while AI could definitely find the data that I find about perfume and talk about it like I talk about it, I think a lot of the reason y’all follow me is my personality and my taste.” She adds, “Stay vigilant and support people on the Internet who are real people.”

Slate Brands is hardly the first brand to encounter pushback to its use of AI—Coca-Cola, Levi’s, Selkie and probably most prominently Duolingo have triggered AI-related uproars—and it’s definitely not going to be the last. In a LinkedIn post on the decision to pull the plug on Iris Lane, founder and CEO Judah Abraham explained the AI influencer was part of Slate Brands’ modus operandi challenging “ideas at the edge of culture, data, and innovation” as the company explores AI applications in its different departments, but wasn’t intended to replace humans.

He wrote, “It raised valid questions about how AI shows up in creative spaces. We listened, and paused. Not just to act, but to stay aligned with values that guide us: curiosity, responsibility, and care for creative work. Iris sparked dialogue we welcomed—it pushed the conversation forward and gave us new insight into how emerging technologies are received in creative industries. We believe strongly in testing bold ideas, but also in moving fast to adjust when something doesn’t land as intended.”

As beauty companies increasingly tap AI, we decided that, for this edition of our ongoing series posing questions relevant to indie beauty, we would dive into the implications of the Iris Lane episode. We asked 10 beauty entrepreneurs, writers, merchants and consultants the following: What’s your response to Slate Brands’ fake influencer? Was the backlash warranted? Are AI influencers the future?

Arabelle Sicardi Beauty Writer, "The House of Beauty"

I have always been a vocal critic of AI influencers in the influencer economy at large. I think the fact some brands preferred to "hire" Lil' Miquela instead of living, breathing queer people for Pride campaigns a few years ago was a bad move. That opinion hasn't changed as they test out the waters of the fragrance space.

The backlash is totally warranted, and it's good it happened early on as a line in the sand. To dismiss it as harmless is a kind of communal permission. The reality is there's already so much uneven distribution of opportunity within the influencer economy and a race to the bottom in terms of pay for creative work. Why would a beauty incubator, who is already using AI in many aspects of its supply chain and production, bother paying for marketing budget and influencer outreach when it can simply make an influencer using data points from successful human influencer profiles?

That way, they don't have to worry about asking for too much or have to deal with a human advocating for higher pay for deliverables. They can just endlessly tweak the output. I understand the logic of it, and I consider it dehumanizing. It removed the human relationship. There is no equivocating there.

I know some people were like, "Influencers are just mad now because it impacts you," but I think that's an ungenerous position to take. As I reported for The Verge, the majority of consumers—including influencers—simply don't know how pervasive AI already is in the beauty industry because it's not legally required to be disclosed. And, in most avenues, there's been no possibility of collective refusal.

There are no Perfumer Unions. We know how small and how hierarchical the industry is behind closed doors. Of course, perfumers had no say, not really, not if they wanted to stay in a corporate role. But when consumers do know, when it's presented closer to home, and there is a semblance of a choice to be made: to be repulsed or to accommodate it—they hate it, actually!

They pushed back on it because it betrays, it shortens a human connection to an emotional and artistic material. It is both an emotionally driven material and a commodity to sell (and to scale). The two truths are hard to hold at once. It makes you reflect on your true priorities, your ranking of importance on these things. Everyone has a different calculus. And it's that choice to discern, to choose for yourself. That has already been taken away from a lot of consumers.

You and I both know this is going to happen again. It's only a matter of time. But I'll also say this: The pervasiveness, the permission for it to happen as an inevitable future, a future to simply submit to, is just one possibility. It does not have to bethe one we choose to walk into. We build futures collectively.

I take the same stance as the director Wong Kar Wai on AI here: "AI can replicate, but can it yearn?" It cannot. At the very least, whoever is influencing you should feel a true yearning. That's what living is all about—real human yearning toward memories of people and places we have loved. Isn't it? Isn't that what perfume marketing has proposed over and over again over centuries and campaigns, too?

Brianna Arps Founder, Moodeaux

The idea of AI influencers in the fragrance space is odd. Fragrance is a sensory artform. It's rooted in emotion, memory and personal expression. AI can't replicate that. It can't smell. It can't feel. So, how is it supposed to offer a meaningful or credible perspective?

The backlash isn't 100% about resisting technology. AI has the potential to be a real industry game-changer, especially behind the scenes with formulation and personalization. But using it to manufacture influence in a space that thrives on authenticity and storytelling feels lazy at best and deceptive at worst.

There are sooo many incredible human creators who care deeply about fragrance. They deserve to be seen, heard, respected and paid. Replacing these figures with digital personas misses the point, all while undermining the trust and integrity the fragrance community (brands and buyers alike) has worked hard to build.

Jake Levy Co-Founder, Stéle

Critiquing AI influencers without first addressing AI-generated and dupe fragrances overlooks a bigger issue. We’re not here to judge either, we believe that the value of originality lies in the spark of creation and a copy can never capture that.

AI influencers only exist because we, as a society, have all in some way become virtual influencers—promoting corporate-approved narratives in one way or another. Our voices would stand out if we focused on independent perspectives. Ultimately, AI influencers are a tool for corporate brands seeking obedient content creators.

We value original perspectives and independent creative endeavors, expressions of authenticity that AI simply cannot truly duplicate.

Donna Lopez Founder, Making Lemonade

The backlash here was, in many ways, justified.

AI has real potential in beauty. It can help brands understand their customers more deeply, personalize experiences, identify opportunity gaps and unlock bold creative ideas. I’ve seen firsthand how it can dramatically improve operational and financial efficiency, especially for smaller brands and independent creators who’ve historically been at a disadvantage.

But what Slate did was a misstep. In an attempt to be “ahead of the curve,” they overlooked the nuance of where we are right now. We’re in a moment where technology is evolving faster than culture can process. It’s the messy middle of a transition, and brands need to be more thoughtful about what they’re replacing, and what message they’re sending when they use AI in creative and consumer-facing ways.

If this launch had been satirical, delightfully weird, self-aware, highly creative and maybe even a commentary on influencer culture itself, it might’ve worked. But what we got instead felt like a brand cutting corners, shameless self-promotion and at the expense of the people who’ve kept this industry human. Slate struck a nerve because it tapped into something deeper.

Creators are already underpaid and undervalued for the cultural capital they generate. And, yet, they’re the ones building trust, community and relevance, often without proper credit or compensation.

So, when a brand rolls out an AI influencer to represent their product, even if it wasn’t Slate’s intent to replace creators, it reads as a cost-cutting move. And it lands as a dismissal of the very people who made modern beauty marketing what it is.

UGC became powerful because it was real. Consumers were tired of the editorial, airbrushed model campaigns. Influencer-led content showed products in action on skin, on bodies, on people you could relate to. AI can mimic that, but it can’t be that. And if I can’t see how something performs on a real person, how do I know what it’ll look like on me?

Because while AI is the future—and, yes, it will change nearly everything—it doesn’t change the fact that humans are still the customer. And humans need to see themselves reflected in a brand’s storytelling, in its community and in the people chosen to represent its products.

AI will undoubtedly play a growing role in creative development, storytelling and campaign execution. It can elevate and expand what’s possible. But it should never replace what makes beauty powerful in the first place: human connection.

Caitie Mace Head of International, Constellar Consultancy

All functions of business are currently assessing where AI can help or hinder, so it is not surprising to me that creative teams are doing the same, testing the limits for where AI in content could be intriguing to viewers versus off-putting. The discourse from content creators in this case mirrors what we are seeing in other areas: With AI, where do we draw the line?

People are drawn to beauty influencer content that describes the sensory experience of products and efficacy in ways that feel lived and, well, human. The element of human touch is so intertwined with personal care, and I think, as beauty marketers, we'd be wise to hold that idea close to our decision making as AI continues to develop.

Katri Haas and Arielle Shoshana Co-Founders, Arielle Shoshana

We're uninterested in generative AI for mostly selfish reasons: Human connection is the fun part of our jobs. We have a customer who came in eight months pregnant, looking for a perfume that would be the first thing her daughter ever smelled. Her daughter is almost 10 now, and every day of her life has smelled like the perfume we helped our customer choose.

Fragrance lets us tag along for so many special moments in our customers' lives, and we treasure those connections so highly. Why would we outsource the most meaningful aspect of what we do to an algorithm?

Our objections to generative AI go beyond Arielle Shoshana's doors. The harmful environmental impact of generative AI cannot be overstated. A generative AI search query (looking something up using ChatGPT, Claude or an equivalent program) consumes 5X more electricity than a non-AI web search. AI data centers require higher water usage for server cooling.

Generative AI devalues creativity, both figuratively and very literally. LLMs like ChatGPT and Midjourney are trained on millions of creative works without creator consent, attribution or compensation. They are imitative, not innovative. Our feeds are brimming with wildly talented creators and fragrance lovers with stories to share which cannot be told by anyone else, much less an "AI influencer."

Franco Wright

Co-Founder, Luckyscent and Scent Bar

I’m in agreement with what the community is mostly aligning with and can see the backlash being warranted. No matter how realistic AI generates an “influencer,” there is simply no substitute for an authentic, personable and nuanced POV that an actual influencer conveys. Sure, AI is in the infancy stages and very soon we’ll have a difficult time discerning between real versus AI, but there will always be an emotional, visceral connection followers will crave from their favorite (and trusted) influencers.

I believe the fragrance community will continue to validate and support real influencers for opinion, trust, education, entertainment and, of course, those exciting OMG gotta-have-it moments in fragrance.

Amy Kapolnek Founder, Fractional CMO and Strategic Advisor, The Fwrd Group

The backlash doesn’t surprise me, and it makes sense given the moment we’re in. Consumers, especially gen Z and millennials, are craving authenticity and transparency from brands more than ever.

Post-pandemic, there’s been a major shift toward prioritizing mental well-being, social connection and “real life” over digital overload. Ad fatigue is very real, and so is the growing demand for in-person, real-world brand experiences. Beauty is such a personal and emotional category that people want human connection, not something that feels manufactured or artificial.

There’s also a lot of fear around AI replacing human creativity and jobs, and in beauty that’s amplified because the influencer economy is such a huge part of the ecosystem. Naturally, content creators and even consumers feel uneasy about AI taking over that space.

From a marketing and cost perspective, I understand the appeal. An AI influencer is cheaper, fully controllable and gives brands a “face” when they don’t have a founder or a founder who wants to be the face. But the trade-off is emotional connection and trust, which are increasingly nonnegotiable for consumers in this category.

AI influencers do exist and have gained traction in some spaces—Lil Miquela is a good example—but mainstream adoption in beauty will take longer. Industries like gaming and fashion may embrace this faster, but beauty is still rooted in trust, authenticity and human emotion. I do think there will come a time when AI influencers are more widely accepted. However, until trust in this technology grows and consumers feel it adds real value rather than taking something away, I don’t see it becoming common practice anytime soon.

Naomi Emiko Co-Founder, TNGE

In the case of AI influencers, we observe that community rejection is not geared towards technology, but rather towards tokenism. Beauty buyers, especially in luxury or sensorial categories like fragrance, crave emotionally intelligent storytelling. They desire to feel seen, not superficially simulated.

However, AI doesn’t need to be human to feel human. But if you introduce an influencer without a specific narrative and relevance or a clear why, innovation is lost in translation, and a sense of trend chasing overshadows engagement potential.

AI influencers are not the future, but they are part of the future, but only if they’re deeply embedded in a brand’s world, values and community. Right now, most brands are skipping the hard part that comes first, brand building. So, AI isn’t the actual enemy, but forgetting brand strategy is.

If you have a question you’d like Beauty Independent to ask beauty entrepreneurs, writers, merchants and consultants, please send it to editor@beautyindependent.com.