_{Getty Images}

In the golden age of influencer marketing and personal branding, it’s become nearly impossible to separate a founder from the business they’ve built. Today’s brands aren’t just selling products  they’re selling personas, often embodied by their creators. But in an age where social media is both a growth engine and a trial by fire, the fusion of founder and brand has created a fragile ecosystem, ripe for public scrutiny and scandal.

The latest example? The viral TikTok drama between Odd Muse founder Aimee Smalls and TikTok creator Plzdontbuythat (real name Mallory Brooks), who built a loyal following by critiquing brands on their ethical and environmental credentials. Mallory’s video critiqued Odd Muse, a brand frequently touting its “timelessness” and “sustainability”  of greenwashing, pointing out the heavy use of polyester in its clothing despite claims of being eco-conscious. The fallout was swift, with viewers questioning Odd Muse’s authenticity, and by extension, Aimee Smalls herself.

This controversy speaks to a wider phenomenon: when a brand’s founder becomes its face, spokesperson, and moral compass, accountability becomes personal  and inseparable.

The Rise of Founder-Led Branding

The 2010s ushered in a new marketing model where transparency, relatability, and storytelling reign supreme. Consumers don’t just want to know what a brand sells, they want to know who is behind it. Founders like Emily Weiss (Glossier), Ben Francis (Gymshark), and Sophia Amoruso (Nasty Gal) grew empires by weaving their personalities into their brands’ DNA. On Instagram, TikTok, and LinkedIn, they became aspirational figures  proof that success could be self-made and stylish.

But this strategy, while potent, is double-edged. The same platforms that elevate founders to celebrity status also expose their every move to public scrutiny. When controversy hits, founders can’t simply hide behind a corporate statement  because they are the brand.

The Problem with Founder Idolatry

Aimee Smalls is a textbook case of modern founder branding. Through Odd Muse’s social media, she shares styling tips, business advice, and behind-the-scenes glimpses of her life, cultivating a sense of intimacy and trust. But this approach, while great for building loyalty, creates a problem when criticism arises: it feels personal.

When Mallory posted her critique, many fans of Odd Muse viewed it as an attack on Aimee Smalls rather than a legitimate concern about sustainability claims. Smalls’ emotional and defensive response including a now-deleted video only added fuel to the fire, illustrating just how personal brand-building has become. This blurring of identity makes it difficult for founders to engage in reflective or corrective behavior without feeling personally attacked, and for critics to separate legitimate concerns from perceived “hate.”

Greenwashing, Accountability, and the Modern Consumer

Plzdontbuythat’s criticism centers on a very real issue in fashion: greenwashing. As the demand for sustainable clothing rises, many brands especially small, independent ones sprinkle buzzwords like “timeless,” “investment piece,” and “eco-conscious” without third-party verification or transparent sourcing. Polyester, a synthetic derived from fossil fuels, is one of the biggest culprits in fashion’s carbon footprint. Brands that use it extensively while marketing themselves as sustainable risk misleading their customers.

Odd Muse isn’t alone in walking this tightrope, but the controversy reveals just how unforgiving today’s consumers are  particularly Gen Z, who are digitally savvy, socially conscious, and skeptical of vague virtue-signaling.

The incident also shows how independent creators like Natalie are emerging as watchdogs. Unlike traditional journalists or regulators, these creators operate outside institutional frameworks, but their influence is potent. They’re part critic, part curator, and fully integrated into their audiences’ digital lives. Their reach can make or break a brand especially when the critique is rooted in fact.

Can Founders Still Be the Face of Their Brands?

As brands become more personality-driven, the question arises: can founders afford to remain the face of their companies in the long term? Or do they risk becoming liabilities when controversy arises?

In some cases, the solution has been to depersonalise. Glossier, for instance, distanced itself from Weiss before she formally stepped down as CEO in 2022, after internal employee complaints around workplace culture surfaced. Other brands adopt a more collective identity, letting product, community, or mission take centre stage rather than one individual.

Yet for many small or emerging brands, the founder is the brand, especially in fashion and beauty, where lifestyle and aspiration drive sales. Transparency, then, must be genuine and holistic. If founders want to be seen as relatable and ethical, their brands must walk that talk in every material, claim, and campaign.

What This Means for the Future of Ethical Branding

This controversy is more than a blip, it’s a bellwether. As the lines between founder, influencer, and brand continue to blur, we will see more public reckonings where founders are held accountable not just for their products, but their ethics, sourcing, and messaging.

For founders, the lesson is clear: being the face of your brand isn’t just a marketing tactic, it’s a responsibility. And for consumers and content creators, these moments are a reminder that critical thinking and digital literacy are more crucial than ever.

When the face of the brand is also the soul of the brand, the stakes are personal. But so, too, is the power to grow, evolve, and do better.