17140: Gene Therapy For Ailing Brand Produces Amazing Results.

Adweek dove into the gene pool of publications, pundits, podcasts, and pinheads opining on the American Eagle campaign starring Sydney Sweeney and her great genes/jeans.

 

No need to conduct a genealogical study, as the historical and hysterical details have been examined ad nauseum.

 

The scenario exposes a Darwinian devolution for liberals and conservatives alike.

 

The left side called out the tone deafness and cultural cluelessness of playing off eugenics and its racist overtones.

 

The right side pooh-poohed the offended with accusations of overreactive political correctness and over-the-top wokeness.

 

Meanwhile, American Eagle flew away, seemingly oblivious to having created a nationwide campaign that excluded a significant segment of Americans.

 

Expect campaign extensions featuring Gene Simmons.

 

How American Eagle’s Sydney Sweeney Ads Became a Culture War Flashpoint 

 

The brand has removed at least one video following ‘pro-eugenics’ accusations

 

By Rebecca Stewart and Robert Klara

 

‘Sydney Sweeney Has Great Jeans,’ declared American Eagle last Tuesday (July 22) in a series of wordplay-laden social ads and a Times Square billboard promoting its fall collection, fronted by the Euphoria and White Lotus star. 

 

On Thursday, American Eagle’s stock had jumped 7%. By Friday, the brand was facing a media firestorm that accused it of promoting “pro-eugenics” ideals—a jarring misstep in an America grappling with a rightward shift.

 

Outrage was sparked by dialogue from one particular video (which now appears to be removed from several social platforms) in which Sweeney says: “My body’s composition is determined by my genes.”

 

As the camera focuses on her breasts, she scolds the operator, “Hey, eyes are up here,” before continuing: “Genes are passed down from parents to offspring, often determining traits like hair color, personality, and even eye color.” The camera pans to her eyes. “My jeans are blue,” she finishes.

 

Critics on TikTok, LinkedIn, and X have called the messaging a “racist dogwhistle,” claiming the creative direction, alongside images of the blue-eyed, blonde-haired star, was a nod to “Nazi” eugenics, an ideology which idealized Aryan features and sought to eliminate or suppress those who didn’t possess them.

 

Before the backlash, American Eagle’s chief marketing officer (CMO) Craig Brommers described Sweeney’s endorsement as one of the “biggest gets in American Eagle history.”

 

He told ADWEEK that the “pressure was on” for the investment to deliver following a $68 million adjusted operating loss for the business in the first quarter of 2025, owing to the impact of tariffs, product misses, and a cold spring.

 

ADWEEK reached out to American Eagle and its PR agency, Shadow, requesting an updated statement on the campaign. They did not respond; however, the brand has removed the film of Sweeney stating that her jeans are blue from several of its online channels, including YouTube and Instagram.

 

American Controversy

 

Reactions to the ad ran the gamut, and so did expert opinions on what caused the backlash. 

 

For veteran brand strategist Jean-Pierre Lacroix, author of books including Desire by Design, the pushback against American Eagle is less about a moral offense than it is a cry of disenfranchisement. 

 

Amid a swing to the right under President Trump, and corporate America’s recent backsliding on DEI initiatives, social progressives are feeling a loss of ground, said Lacroix.

 

This segment of consumers “feels like society has revolted against them, so they have portrayed this ad as the manifestation of a move away from diversity and inclusion,” observed Lacroix. “They’re reaching because they’re wounded, and they’re looking for a visual metaphor that validates their position. This ad became a lightning rod.”

 

Dory Ellis Garfinkle, CMO of global brand consultancy Siegel+Gale, suggested that the outcry over the ad may be missing the larger point that American Eagle could be ginning up outrage for its own sake.

 

“Rather than what the controversy is all about, what is more interesting is that a brand like American Eagle would stir controversy over an ad for denim,” she said. 

 

“It signals that creating controversy and attention-grabbing content is now everywhere, and this flavor may reflect a cultural longing for simpler times. It is unlikely that [the team] proceeded with this campaign without having insight into their audience and business that led to the decision.”

 

Leila Fataar, former Adidas and Diageo marketer-turned-founder of consultancy Platform13 and author of Culture-Led Brands, believes the backlash reflects a simple truth: brand messages don’t land in a vacuum; they land in culture, and that culture needs to be reflected in agency teams and marketing departments.

 

“Brands are active participants in a global dialogue, with cultural fluency not just a marketing advantage but a foundational element of successful contemporary business strategy,” she said. 

 

Fataar added: “In this transformational and pivotal moment in global history, and specifically in the U.S., ensuring a variety of perspectives both in ideation and, importantly, in decision making is essential.”

 

Return of the Male Gaze

 

Intentional or not, American Eagle’s campaign is a trip back in time to the so-called “pre-woke” era that held fast to a stereotypical view of the ideal American woman: young, beautiful, buxom, and almost invariably caucasian. It was an industry norm that endured for decades.

 

In 1971, for example, National Airlines ran a hugely successful campaign that featured coquettish flight attendants inviting male viewers to “fly me.” 

 

In 1980, Calvin Klein pushed the envelope further with ads—which some have compared to American Eagle’s current effort—featuring a 15-year-old Brooke Shields pulling on skin-tight jeans and, in a sotto voice, addressing the camera: “Do you know what comes between me and my Calvins? Nothing.” 

 

A quarter of a century later, little had changed. GoDaddy’s ad for the 2005 Super Bowl featured voluptuous model Candice Michelle spilling out of a too-tight tank top, feigning embarrassment when her bra strap broke.

 

Though it’s aimed at women, American Eagle’s campaign echoes that aesthetic. Some of the ads focus on Sweeney’s individual body parts, including her chest and buttocks, and several of the spots show her performing for and addressing an unseen cameraman.

 

American Eagle’s is not the first sexually suggestive ad starring Sweeney this year. In June, she fronted a campaign for Dr. Squatch, promoting bars of soap that contained her bathwater. The push was firmly intended for the male gaze, with Sweeney mocking “dirty little boys” with a product that smelled like “morning wood.”

 

The actor was involved in everything from product development to creative strategy, Dr. Squatch’s vp of global marketing, John Ludeke told ADWEEK at the time.

 

“Women also love Sydney Sweeney,” he said. “While there may be some people who say they don’t like the concept, overall, what we’ve heard is people appreciate a woman who is in power, who’s in control, who’s able to have fun and not take themselves too seriously.”

 

American Eagle’s campaign was originally intended to support a domestic violence charity, with 100% of the purchase price of Sweeney’s namesake jeans going to Crisis Text Line, which provides confidential, 24/7 mental‑health and domestic violence support via text.

 

Instead, it has become another flashpoint in America’s culture wars.

 

It’s a clear reminder for brands that without the right checks and balances, even well-meaning work can do more harm than good.

14681: 7up Not Politically Correct With Political Advertisement.

This 7up advertisement is harmoniously celebrating Independence Day in Nigeria—with the weapon of choice for wildlife killers worldwide.

13802: ESPN PC BS.

The ESPN decision to pull broadcaster Robert Lee from handling a University of Virginia football game in Charlottesville sparked lively debate for sure. But no worries—the network is bound to rebound after choosing to replace White advertising agency Wieden + Kennedy with White advertising agency Droga5. Let the hypocritical and patronizing games begin!

9110: Bob Hoffman Is Nuts. No Offense.

Like many bloggers and pundits, Bob Hoffman of The Ad Contrarian panned The Richards Group’s “Hail to the V” campaign for Summer’s Eve. Upon later learning that Goodby, Silverstein & Partners’ “Got PMS?” milk campaign for the California Milk Processor Board was also ripped by critics and ultimately yanked, Hoffman was inspired to publish another post titled, “I Am Offended.” Hoffman’s perspective discussed advertisers’ right to free speech, and he wondered if public pressure to pull campaigns amounted to censorship. In Hoffman’s words, “Is it wise to apply pressure to effectively silence offensive ideas?”

Of course, the post ignited a comments thread including the typical remarks like, “It’s always a source of bewilderment to me just how far those who are so easily offended will go out of their way merely to find something that will offend them,” “Political correctness is nothing but fascism in new clothes,” and the ever-popular hack’s gripe, “We’re heading for a road of bland, thought-free advertising purely to safeguard against people (who more than likely are not your target audience) being offended.” MultiCultClassics left initial comments in response to the clichéd and contrived whiners, yet felt compelled to further examine Hoffman’s true viewpoint. Read the full post and preceding post to draw your own conclusions. MultiCultClassics is focusing on the following excerpts:

I am afraid that we are in a slow but inexorable slide toward the erosion of free speech. To a significant degree, this erosion is due to the erroneous belief that people have a right to be free of offense.

In fact, our constitution guarantees exactly the opposite. It guarantees us the right to offend whomever the hell we want whenever the hell we want to. That’s what free speech means.

Our courts have held that as a general principle commercial speech enjoys similar protections as individual speech. This means that businesses and advertisers have the same right to offend that individuals do.

I happen to hold very liberal views about individual liberties, including free speech. But there is a branch of “liberalism” these days that has become very intolerant. These people are humorless scolds who are very easily offended and demand instant redress for their injured sensitivities.

There is also a branch of conservatism that thinks we need to be protected from “dangerous” ideas. Well, I appreciate your concern, but if it’s all the same to you, I’d like to draw my own conclusions.

The tricky part is this. Government is prohibited from censoring what we can say. But well-meaning citizens, believing they are protecting society from dangerous, offensive, or prejudicial ideas, have substantial power to censor by applying economic pressure.

In the internet age, it has become much easier to band together to exert pressure for the purpose of silencing ideas we don’t like. And we have every right to do so. But before we exercise this right we need to think seriously about the implications.

I don’t believe our sensitivities are so profound that they trump someone else’s right to offend us. I don’t believe we want to allow the limits of commercial discourse to be determined by the loudest bullies on the web.

Do ethnic, racial and sexual stereotypes cause offense? Absolutely.

Should we act to silence them? Absolutely not.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Hoffman usually exhibits above-average intelligence, and his blog is among the finer reads out there, but he really comes off as an Old White Guy in this scenario.

Wikipedia states, “Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and by many state constitutions and state and federal laws, with the exception of obscenity, defamation, incitement to riot, and fighting words, as well as harassment, privileged communications, trade secrets, classified material, copyright, patents, military conduct, commercial speech such as advertising, and time, place and manner restrictions.” There are other provisions listed at Wikipedia as well. So it’s a bit of a stretch for Hoffman to proclaim the U.S. Constitution guarantees people the right to offend whomever the hell they want whenever the hell they want to.

Hoffman is a tad delusional to write, “Our courts have held that as a general principle commercial speech enjoys similar protections as individual speech. This means that businesses and advertisers have the same right to offend that individuals do.” Um, not exactly. Advertising has been regulated seemingly forever by sources such as the FCC, FDA and—wait for it—TV network censors. Hell, nearly every form of media features some type of official ad scrutiny on national, local and in-house levels. And do you want to know a main reason why, Mr. Hoffman? Because our industry has consistently demonstrated that its practitioners cannot be trusted. We’re hucksters. Offensive too.

Plus, advertisers bleep themselves. Anyone with any experience in the business knows that clients have their own internal watchdogs with wildly inconsistent and personal standards. A common killer of campaigns uttered by clients and adpeople alike is, “This will never get past the guys in legal.” And to be clear, advertisers’ “legal departments” make calls that go beyond legal issues, reaching as far as moral territory.

If advertising can be “censored” by the government, media and advertisers, why can’t the public nix messages too?

Hoffman’s attacks on “liberals” and “conservatives” sound familiar—and a little paranoid. Could it be that the entire rant is really rooted in a fear of advancement? Consider the following ads:





Does anyone not think these messages are offensive? Does anyone not think these messages should be prohibited from running today?

Society has moved forward, abandoning these types of messages, because of pressures exerted by the government, media, advertisers and the public. Sure, there were probably folks arguing about “political correctness” and “freedom of speech” when the eliminations took place, just as there were jeers for Henry Ford by yahoos who didn’t want to give up their horses. Hey, change for the better can be scary.

Women’s Rights, Civil Rights and Gay Rights began when individuals and groups proceeded to challenge what others were saying. The U.S. of A launched with protests too. In a similar spirit, if advertisers insult someone—deliberately or not—the offended have the right to tell them to stop. Why, it might be an ethical and moral obligation. Freedom of speech is a two-way street. Go ahead and shit on the public, Madison Avenue. But please do not cry when turds are tossed back in your direction.

Hoffman’s thoughts on the Internet Age are wacky. Yes, the World Wide Web has enabled folks to organize grievances in new ways. On the flip side, it has fueled nutcases and advertisers to push offensiveness to unprecedented heights. Sorry, the offenders still outnumber the offended.

“I don’t believe our sensitivities are so profound that they trump someone else’s right to offend us. I don’t believe we want to allow the limits of commercial discourse to be determined by the loudest bullies on the web,” wrote Hoffman. Gee, cultural cluelessness makes smart people type stupid statements. Additionally, labeling the offended as “bullies” could be a new standard of arrogance for the White privileged among us.

Hoffman should not be “afraid that we are in a slow but inexorable slide toward the erosion of free speech.” It’s actually an explosion of free speech, as the public exercises the right to rebut offenders. God Bless America!

We’ve all heard the belief—often delivered by talentless amateurs and direct marketers—that advertising is not art. For the record, MultiCultClassics does not subscribe to the contention. However, the overwhelming majority of adpeople are not fine artists or political revolutionaries. And Mad Men should not be permitted to justify ignorance by embracing freedom of speech. We must operate under restrictions, we must act with responsibility and we must view the public with respect.

It’s not the road to hell. It’s the road to progress.

8748: Mitt Catches Foot In Mouth.

The New York Daily News reported Mitt Romney was backpedaling after suggesting it was time to “hang” President Obama. Actually, Romney meant to say Obama’s policies were the linchpin… no wait, he should have said Obama must be whipped into shape… that is, Americans shouldn’t be slaves to the Obama administration’s… um, or maybe Obama is a cotton-picking… oh, never mind.

Mitt Romney suggests it’s time to ‘hang’ President Obama during stop in New Hampshire

By Nina Mandell, Daily News Staff Writer

Mitt Romney scrambled to do some damage control after he suggested it was time to “hang” President Obama in a speech in New Hampshire Friday night.

The former Massachusetts governor and probable 2012 presidential candidate was speaking at a dinner when he said in response to an attendee’s question, “Reagan came up with this great thing about the ‘misery index’ and he hung that around Jimmy Carter’s neck and that had a lot to do with Jimmy Carter losing. Well we’re going to have to hang the ‘Obama Misery Index’ around his neck.”

Romney went on to describe how people in the U.S. are suffering because of high fuel prices, foreclosures and bankruptcies.

“We’re going to hang him with that,” Romney said before catching himself and adding, “so to speak, metaphorically.”

Seeming to know that he had just severely misspoke, Romney then added, “You have to be careful these days.”

On Saturday morning, his spokesperson Andrea Saul told CNN in an email that any stories of the remarks were “an exaggeration.”

“It is not what the governor meant and that was very clear in what he actually said. It’s a ridiculous exaggeration of his actual comments,” she said.

Romney, who announced he was forming an exploratory committee earlier this month, is considered a possible favorite to win the GOP nomination.

When asked if he would participate in the Republicans’ first debate in South Carolina next week, he answered “Stay tuned,” the Wall Street Journal reported.

Romney’s spokesperson did not immediately return an email request for comment to The News.

8694: U.S. Map Of Stereotypes.

This map from Gadling is actually pretty polite—and politically-correct.

8689: Boy, GEICO, Nice Cartoon Casting.

This new GEICO commercial features Foghorn Leghorn. Who’s next? Uncle Remus from Song of the South?

8128: More Comments On Kmart And Draftfcb.

To put the Kmart-Draftfcb holiday mess in perspective, it must be noted that the original Advertising Age story drew two comments (posted below). The first comment from fotolady argues that the only true way to celebrate Christmas—and realize business success—is by honoring Jesus Christ. 123kstang counters by stating the original story did not focus on Christmas, but rather, the holidays (although technically, Kmart CMO Mark Snyder did reference Christmas). The dismissive 123kstang comment ends by proclaiming, “This isn’t the 60’s.” Um, there are actually components in this scenario where Kmart and Draftfcb operated as if this is pre-Civil Rights era. Happy Holidays!

By fotolady | Jenison, MI November 1, 2010 01:07:51 pm:

We as Christians have to stand by our faith and not let the world’s views deter us from it. By saying “any way” to celebrate Christmas is “the right way” is saying you accept all other religions.
Do not turn away from the truth, which is the reason we celebrate Christmas is Jesus Christ. If we honor Him, God will honor our businesses.
Please re-think your convictions.

By 123kstang | San Francisco, CA November 1, 2010 03:22:56 pm:

Hey Fotolady,

It was never specifically phrased “to celebrate Christmas”. It was only generally referenced as celebrating the holidays.

”Everybody celebrates differently, and the way you choose to celebrate is the right way.”

Also, are you implying that including all religions is a bad marketing strategy?

This isn’t the 60’s.

8111: Politically Correct Not Always Right.

From The Chicago Tribune…

Why PC is such a pain, no offense

By Clarence Page

Political correctness may be the biggest stealth issue in this political season, partly because people are afraid to talk about it.

For example, a new poll by Rasmussen Reports finds that 74 percent of the Americans surveyed regard political correctness as “a problem” — and 57 percent believe the country has become “too politically correct.”

How did the pollsters define “politically correct”? They didn’t. The respondents were left to define PC any way they wanted and, whatever that happened to be, most of them didn’t like it.

PC is like flu season: Everybody hates it, but it keeps coming back. We try to inoculate ourselves the best we can, hoping we don’t get hit by some new, unexpected strains of offense.

Witness, for example, then-Sen. Joe Biden’s irritating many African-Americans in 2008 with an unfortunately condescending-sounding use of the words “clean” and “articulate” to compliment then-Sen. Barack Obama. At least Biden wound up with the vice presidency.

Biden’s presence came in handy when President Obama found himself offending conservatives by saying the Cambridge, Mass., police behaved “stupidly” in arresting Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates at his home. Everybody hates PC, it seems, yet everybody seems to have his or her own version of it.

Political correctness generally is defined as a ban, usually unwritten, against language or practices that could offend women, minorities and other legally or socially protected groups.

Personally I prefer to call it by the old-fashioned label that my parents taught me: good manners.

But PC becomes more problematic when it tries to codify what’s going to offend people or even violate rights when people and situations can be so different.

Efforts to protect one group sometimes can offend others, as in Grand Rapids, Mich., where state civil rights officials are investigating an unnamed 33-year-old woman for posting an advertisement at her church last July seeking a “Christian roommate.”

That violates fair housing laws, the director of the Fair Housing Center of West Michigan told Fox News. “No exemptions.”

You don’t have to be paranoid to wonder whether cases like that are filed by somebody who deliberately wants to make fair housing laws look bad.

On the other hand, you have cases like Carl Paladino, New York’s Republican gubernatorial nominee, who declares, “I’m not politically correct,” in ways that make political correctness look good.

He proudly espoused his opposition to PC when asked, for example, about sexually and racially charged e-mails he had forwarded to friends. One of his missives famously featured a Photoshopped picture of Barack and Michelle Obama as a pimp and hooker. Not too classy.

But, alas, in a democracy, unlike the private sector, voters can decide what’s politically correct in their candidates.

Besides, if politics doesn’t work out for Paladino, for example, he received an offer from Hustler publisher Larry Flynt to be the porn magazine’s executive editor, Politico.com reports. “It’s clear he’s better suited to join our team,” said Flynt, “than be the governor of the state of New York.”

That’s why I think PC is a stealth issue in these midterm elections. Although all political sides have their own versions of political correctness, liberal PC further enrages the already-aroused right when they sense, for example, that it protects Obama from criticism.

Tea party movement supporters, for example, don’t like to have their nonracial concerns about taxes and government spending dismissed as “racist” — and liberals don’t like to have their concerns about health care and job stimulus dismissed as “elitist.”

Today’s PC battles date back largely to the 1960s. By the end of the decade, traditional partisan differences about how government should be run were recast into a culture war between self-styled forces of good and evil that over time have became even more polarized.

The actor Hal Holbrook once said he hates PC because “it causes us to lie silently instead of saying what we think.” We’d be better off discussing what we think openly, candidly and sensibly, if we aren’t too afraid to talk.

5033: Politically Correct Advertising?

What’s with the staging for political candidates advertising their commitment to education?


The Black candidate shows up in a predominately White school…


The Indian American candidate meets with a predominately Black group of kids…


The Latino candidate opts not to appear at all, displaying a United Nations classroom…

What’s the lesson to be learned here?

Essay 4543

Old school moves in a MultiCultClassics Monologue…

• “Slave labor is the way to go because slaves aren’t paid, so all money is profit,” declared a sixth-grade student from Grover Cleveland Middle School in Caldwell, New Jersey. As part of a social studies assignment created by two language arts teachers at the school, students were asked to create an advertising campaign hyping slave labor for a newly built plantation. In fact, this is the second consecutive year the project has been given to the kids. “Our intent was not to be insensitive,” announced the school principal, responding to complaints from parents. “After reviewing the assignment and listening to feedback, from an administrative and teaching perspective, we determined it was insensitive and inappropriate. And we will eliminate it from the curriculum.” However, the students can now expect to be heavily recruited by Madison Avenue advertising agencies.

• Shock jock Don Imus is reportedly wrapping up the details on a new contract that will put him back on the air via Citadel Broadcasting. This news gives the kids at Grover Cleveland Middle School a lesson about the power of White bigotry.

• Desperate Housewives sparked controversy over a politically-incorrect punchline delivered by Teri Hatcher’s character in the season premiere episode. After the character was told during a doctor’s examination that she might be going through menopause, she remarked, “OK, before we go any further, can I check these diplomas? Just to make sure they aren’t, like, from some med school in the Philippines?” Philippine officials protested, while viewers launched a petition that read, “A statement that devalues Filipinos in healthcare is extremely unfounded, considering the overwhelming presence of Filipinos and Filipino Americans in the medical field.” ABC responded with an apology that included, “The producers of ‘Desperate Housewives’ and ABC Studios offer our sincere apologies for any offense caused by the brief reference in the season premiere. There was no intent to disparage the integrity of any aspect of the medical community in the Philippines. … As leaders in broadcast diversity, we are committed to presenting sensitive and respectful images of all communities featured in our programs.” Um, isn’t broadcast diversity almost an oxymoron on network television?

[Thanks to Bill Green of Make The Logo Bigger for pointing out a few of these news items.]