A lot of people fans and marketers are talking about the creative for Taylor’s latest album.
They’re saying it’s lacking.
But hasn’t that always kind of been the point? Much like her wardrobe (on stage and off), it’s never been overly stylized or avant-garde. If I had to sum it up in one word, it would be basic. Not in a negative sense, but in a way that makes it accessible, relatable, and ultimately consistent. It makes her the most palatable to the most amount of people.
Note: Before you come for me, I’m very neutral on Taylor - I’m not a swiftie but the woman’s lyrics are FIRE. This is just my opinion as a marketer who noticed something.
Sure, she’s a billionaire. Yes, she wears luxury designers to games and dinners. But her engagement dress? The dress she wore in a photo we’ve all seen a million times? A $400 dress from an American-made designer. (That quickly went on sale! )
When she could have worn any designer at any price point for that photo, and instead chose something relatively affordable? That detail matters.
Her brand has always been about the “girl next door” appeal. She’s positioned herself as the type of person you could run into in the bar bathroom and end up hanging out with all night. That’s not a coincidence…it’s strategy.
The dynamic reminds me of influencer culture: while the “cool-girl” influencers might capture your attention with perfectly styled photos and cinematic edits, the one you’re more likely to actually connect and align with is the person posting goofy videos in sweats. Taylor leans into that side, and it works because it aligns with the story she’s been telling forever.
True, money doesn’t buy taste, but Taylor is a smart woman. She has access to the best creatives and could easily reinvent her aesthetic to be sharper, edgier, more high-fashion or attention-grabbing. But she doesn’t. She chooses to keep her world familiar, approachable, and just polished enough.
Except now people are starting to notice.
I’ve chatted with a few people about this and opinions have varied from
Unbothered: “Money doesn’t buy taste.” to
Upset [re: the cardigan]: “Isn’t that kind of a slight to her own fans? She puts out designs that are average at best (sometimes downright terrible) and people shell out money, wear them on their bodies, and wait in endless lines just because it feels ‘relatable??’”
What’s important here, though, is that people are talking about it from a business/marketing point of view. They’re not just saying they don’t like her creative, they’re insinuating that they expected better.
It makes sense. People are consuming more and more content, so they’re getting a LOT of exposure to a LOT of creative. Some of it is good, some of it is great, and some of it is terrible. The sheer quantity of content online right now basically guarantees that people with no experience in video or graphic design, will be able to discern good from bad. You could know 0% of a new language, but if you expose yourself to it enough (like…hours per day) you’d eventually get the hang of it.
Plus, with this increase in personal content creation, anyone can become a graphic designer, video editor, or photographer, picking up on nuances and techniques that before were only accessible through higher education. I’m not suggesting that a certain level of taste isn’t required to succeed in these roles, just that anyone can learn the basics and have an opinion.
And oh, do they.
So when these people are used to insane campaign rollouts and high-quality, cool-as-shit creative, and the one artist who could probably do the most doesn’t pull through, it might feel disappointing.
It’s not about purposefully neglecting the creative - it’s about making a deliberate choice to stay palatable. The catch? Audiences are getting sharper. Their taste levels are evolving. And that raises the question: at what point does “trying to be relatable” stop working?