American Eagle Outfitters recently launched a controversial advertising campaign featuring 27-year-old actor Sydney Sweeney, known for her roles in popular HBO series such as “Euphoria.” The campaign, dubbed “Sydney Sweeney has great jeans,” aimed to create a buzz with its provocative language and visuals. While it indeed generated significant public attention, the backlash surrounding the campaign has ignited debates regarding race, societal beauty standards, and the implications of its messaging amid contemporary, often polarized political contexts.
Central to the criticism was a clever wordplay in the campaign that substituted “jeans” with “genes.” This linguistic twist led some viewers to connect it, whether intentionally or unconsciously, to the controversial and outdated theory of eugenics. Critics argued that using such wordplay without showcasing a diverse representation in the advertisements could lend itself to misunderstandings and reinforce negative ideologies tied to selective breeding. Marcus Collins, a marketing assistant professor, opined that incorporating models of different races could have mitigated such reactions, suggesting that the absence of diversity could be seen as either ignorance or laziness.
Despite the backlash, some commentators dismissed the criticism as an overreaction. Former Fox News host Megyn Kelly noted that the uproar surrounding the advertisement resulted in heightened exposure for Sweeney and her “good genes.” This highlights a divide in public perception; some felt that the pushback against American Eagle’s campaign only amplified the actress’s visibility. The controversy generated a significant discourse online, showcasing varying opinions on the nature of beauty standards and advertising strategies.
Financially, American Eagle has been navigating challenging waters, facing declining sales figures compared to previous years and an overall slowdown in consumer spending. Despite these challenges, a day after announcing Sweeney’s involvement in the campaign, American Eagle’s stock saw an uptick of over 4%. This volatility reflects a complex relationship between marketing efforts and investor sentiment, as the brand seeks to differentiate itself in a competitive market filled with mid-priced retailers. Alan Adamson, a marketing consultant, likened the campaign to the provocative ad strategies of past decades, suggesting it followed a tried-and-true playbook of using attractive models and suggestive messaging to capture attention.
The campaign is promoted through an expansive advertising strategy, including 3D billboards in Times Square, social media engagements on platforms like Snapchat and Instagram, and even features such as an AI-enabled try-on function. A notable aspect of the collaboration includes launching a limited-edition Sydney jean, with proceeds directed to a nonprofit addressing domestic violence. American Eagle has framed Sweeney’s persona as relatable and accessible, emphasizing her “girl next door” appeal throughout the campaign’s messaging.
Critics have drawn parallels between American Eagle’s ad and previous advertising missteps, notably Pepsi’s controversial 2017 campaign, which faced backlash for trivializing social justice movements. The evolving landscape of advertising post-George Floyd’s killing has pushed brands toward more inclusive representations. With rising concerns of a potential retreat from diversity in marketing, experts suggest that companies risk alienating segments of their consumer base. While American Eagle has historically championed diversity—evidenced by initiatives like creating a denim hijab and offering a range of sizes in their Aerie line—recent actions suggest a shift in focus that might compromise its hard-won reputation for inclusivity. The varied reception of the “good jeans” campaign has prompted a reassessment of what constitutes effective marketing in today’s climate, with mixed opinions on whether such strategies might ultimately benefit or harm the brand’s image.
