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.
No comments:
Post a Comment