Digiday published a diagnosis on the genetic disorders affecting recent American Eagle and Dunkin’ campaigns.
Mythbusted: American Eagle and Dunkin’ and the risk of ignoring cultural context in ads
By Seb Joseph
American Eagle has joined the increasingly long list of brands that somehow didn’t see it coming.
Like Bud Light, Target and Jaguar Land Rover before it, the retailer stepped into the culture wars with the kind of casual confidence that suggests senior marketers are still underestimating how combustible “just another campaign” can be. In this case, it was an ad featuring a white, blue-eyed blond film star Sydney Sweeney praising the culture of “good jeans” — a line that might’ve passed without notice a decade ago, now reads more like a Rorschach test for who brands think they’re speaking to.
It landed awkwardly amid ongoing cultural scrutiny of representation, identity and who gets to be the face of America cool. And it didn’t help that Dunkin’ had just aired an ad with actor Gavin Casalegno boasting that his sun-kissed glow came down to “genetics.”
Together, the two campaigns are more signs of a persistent blind spot: the belief that cultural relevance can be manufactured without risk or that casting choices are neutral. They’re not. And the surprise, at this point, feels less like naivete and more like denial.
The myths marketing tells itself — that it can borrow from culture without participating in it, that nostalgia is safe, that representation is a box to check — are showing their cracks. Again.
Myth: “We had diverse people in the room so we’re good.”
Reality: Representation in the room doesn’t mean influence in the decision-making. Junior staffers, freelancers or DEI advisors can’t always challenge risk-averse CMOs. Cultural fluency isn’t just about headcount, it’s about authority.
“The problem is the conflation of diversity and inclusivity,” said Leila Fataar, founder of brand consultancy Platform13. A brand may have the right people in the room, whether inhouse or through their agencies, but if the company (either brand or agency) is not inclusive, where diverse voices feel empowered to challenge and be both heard and listened to, then it doesn’t matter.”
Myth: “This talent isn’t political. They’re safe.”
Reality: In this polarized climate, no one’s safe. Whether it’s Sydney Sweeney’s conservative family ties or queer influencer with activist roots, everything is politicized after launch. The idea that you can pick someone “neutral” is a myth. The reality is that too many marketers still tend to define “safe” by proximity to whiteness or likability, which is its own bias.
“We all see brands through our culture stack, as explained in detail in my book, Culture Led Brands,” said Fataar. “That means brand messages (and therefore brands), whether intentional or not, are and have always been determined and perceived against the backdrop of the politics and policies of that era, the media and technological adoption.”
Myth: “The backlash is just trolls or bots. Ignore it.”
Reality: Sometimes that’s true — but not always. Real people often have real critiques on who gets spotlighted, who’s left out or what a campaign subtly signals — inadvertently or not. Dismissing it as noise can blind brands to underlying patterns that keep resurfacing.
Myth: “We did the DEI work in 2020 — we’ve moved on.”
Reality: Many brands built out DEI during the post-George Floyd reckoning. But few embedded it into creative strategy, casting pipelines or vendor selection. It was often PR insulation, not infrastructure. And that’s how you get blind spots.
Myth: “We can fix it with a statement later.”
Reality: Statements don’t work when people don’t trust the system behind them. If your team lacks cultural context or your agency has no equity in communities you’re trying to reach, then the damage is already done.
Myth: “If it performs well on social media, it must be working.”
Reality: Metrics like engagement, reach and sentiment are often shallow indicators of cultural resonance. A campaign might be getting clicks because its controversial — or because it’s being hate-shared. Not all virality is good ROI, and not all engagement reflects alignment with brand values.
Myth: “Our agency “gets it” — they’ve worked on inclusive campaigns before.”
Reality: Just because an agency can name-drop a few inclusive wins doesn’t mean they’re equipped to navigate the nuances of every campaign. Cultural competency isn’t one size fits all and too many agencies still use the same mostly-white creative teams to execute work aimed at broad, diverse audiences.
Myth: “We can just add a diverse influencer to the mix and call it balanced.”
Reality: Tokenism disguised as inclusivity is not progress. Sticking in one Black or Brown creator next to a celebrity with a complicated track record doesn’t resolve the underlying disconnect — it amplifies it.
“Representation isn’t a casting decision. Placing a diverse face in a campaign is surface-level inclusion,” said Sunny Bonnell, founder and CEO of brand transformation agency Motto. “True representation shows up in the values a brand upholds, the stories it prioritizes, the power it redistributes, and the people who sit at the decision-making table.”
Myth: “If we don’t say anything political, we’ll stay out of trouble.”
Reality: Silence is a political stance now. Whether you want to or not, brands are operating in a landscape where neutrality is interpreted — and often weaponized. You don’t have to be performative, but you can’t pretend cultural context doesn’t exist.
Myth: “The backlash caught us off guard.”
Reality: Not always. Sometimes, the backlash is the point. Certain campaigns are crafted to poke the cultural bear, banking on the idea that a little outrage can boost impressions, trend on social and earn media coverage without spending on marketing. It’s a familiar play: provoke just enough to stir debate, ride the controversy then retreat into vague brand speak. The catch? It’s a short-term hack that chips away at long-term trust — especially with the audiences a marketer claims to champion.
