How poor marketing execution can kill brand credibility quickly
I needed a replacement battery for a digital camera a while back, so I went looking online to compare original manufacturer prices against third-party options. The usual retailers came up quickly, Digital Camera Warehouse, JB Hi-Fi, eBay, Amazon, and since I knew the exact model and part number, finding pricing and stock took minutes.
Then I found Battery World, a specialist battery franchise, whose page told me their range was: “so big we couldn’t fit it all online.”
I actually paused and laughed.
Not because it was a small, forgivable slip, but because a specialist retailer, in a category defined by having a wide range, had chosen a line that basically said “we couldn’t be bothered.” I’d just found exactly what I needed from three other retailers in the time it took to read that sentence.
I didn’t call them. I bought elsewhere and have never considered shopping with them since.
Worth being upfront about the timing here: this was a few years ago and Battery World has since built out a genuine, browsable online product catalogue with real categories and stock. This specific line no longer reflects their current site and I’m not suggesting it does. I’m keeping the example because the underlying lesson is still exactly as relevant today, arguably more relevant and it’s a mistake I still see regularly across plenty of other brands who haven’t caught up yet.
Why a line like that actually costs you the sale
The internet doesn’t have a shelf-space problem.
Amazon and eBay list literally millions of products without issue. A line like “too much to fit online” isn’t a technical limitation, it’s a decision and to a customer staring there mid-search, it reads as either lazy or dishonest. Neither is a great first impression from a specialist you’re about to trust with money.
It also breaks a basic rule of persuasion: vague reassurance never beats a specific, direct answer. “We have a big range” tells a customer nothing they can act on. A search box, a filtered category list, or even just the actual products, tells them everything, in the time it takes to glance at the page.
This is the same problem as generic content, just shorter
This connects directly to something worth understanding about how content earns attention now, whether from a human or an AI system summarising a page for someone. Vague copy that avoids the specific question a customer actually has is the retail equivalent of what Google now calls commodity content, generic, unspecific, replaceable by any competitor saying the same thing.
“So big we couldn’t fit it all online” tells a search engine nothing concrete either. A real product list, real categories, real stock information, gives both a human and an AI system something specific to work with, exactly the unique, specific, authentic standard that separates content worth citing from content that gets skipped.
The same principle applies whether it’s one lazy sentence on a category page or an entire site built on vague, generic claims. Evasive, unspecific language costs you twice now: the human reader who moves on, and the search or AI system that has nothing specific enough to point anyone toward you for.
Today's version of the same mistake: AI-generated images and video
The lazy tagline was 2021’s version of poor execution. In 2026, the same instinct, take a shortcut instead of doing the work properly, shows up as obviously AI-generated marketing imagery and video, and it’s costing well-known brands real credibility. The term for it, “AI slop,” was Merriam-Webster’s word of the year for 2025.
McDonald’s pulled an AI-generated ad after it backfired publicly, and McDonald’s Netherlands separately cancelled an AI-generated holiday advertisement after audiences called it “creepy” and said it carried no genuine emotional warmth. Valentino and Gucci faced similar backlash: Valentino over a “disturbing“ AI-generated handbag campaign, and Gucci’s AI visuals for a Milan Fashion Week promotion drew comments calling them “cheap” and “lazy,” a particularly damaging read for a brand built on the idea of craftsmanship.
None of these are small businesses cutting corners. They’re some of the biggest marketing budgets in the world and the shortcut still read as exactly that, a shortcut.
The data backs up what the backlash suggests.
A June 2026 Harris Poll, run with the 4As and Infillion, found 78% of consumers say AI makes an ad feel less authentic, 73% are less likely to trust an ad they suspect was AI-made, and 63% say they’re less likely to buy from a brand that uses AI-generated advertising. That last number is the one that should matter most to a business owner: it’s not a taste preference, it’s a stated reason not to buy.
Some brands have made the opposite bet explicitly. Dove pledged never to replace real people with AI in its advertising. Aerie, Equinox and Almond Breeze have all run campaigns directly calling out “AI slop” as something they won’t do. That’s the same instinct behind showing real people doing real work on video rather than polished, generic content, authenticity is what’s actually in short supply now, which makes it worth more, not less, the more AI-generated content floods everyone’s feed.
None of this means AI has no place in marketing production.
It means the same rule applies as it always has: if what you’re showing a customer is meant to represent something real, your product, your team, your actual work, it needs to actually be real, or clearly labelled otherwise. A generic AI-rendered “team photo” or product shot fails for exactly the same reason “so big we couldn’t fit it all online” failed: it’s a shortcut standing in for something specific, and people can tell.
What to do instead
- If the range genuinely can’t be listed in full, say why specifically, and give a clear next step, a search tool, a phone number with a real response-time promise, a chat option, not just an apology dressed up as a feature.
- Default to showing the actual information. A visible price, a visible product list, a visible answer beats a vague reassurance every time.
- Read your own website the way a first-time visitor would, looking for the exact answer to their question, and cut any line that dodges it instead of answering it.
- If you’re mid-way through building a better solution (a new online store, for instance), say so plainly and give people an interim way to get what they need, rather than let the interim state read as a permanent excuse.
I didn’t use that business that day, and the honest, longer-lasting effect is that I haven’t thought to check them again since. One customer’s experience isn’t proof of anything on its own, but it’s a useful reminder that a marketing message only gets one chance to make a first impression, and a vague, evasive one is the easiest way to burn it.
If you’re not sure whether your own website copy is doing this without you realising, get in touch and I’ll read it the way a first-time customer would. I read website copy the way a genuinely undecided customer does, looking for the specific answer, not the reassurance. If your messaging might be costing you sales without you realising it, see how I could help.
