American Eagle’s new campaign featuring actress Sydney Sweeney has ignited fierce online controversy this summer. The advertisement’s messaging divided social media users, either defending or criticizing the clothing brand’s creative choices.
The campaign centers on Sweeney, modeling denim while delivering the tagline, “Sydney Sweeney has great jeans.” The double entendre between “jeans” and “genes” became the focus of widespread criticism. Some social media users interpreted the wordplay as having deeper implications beyond simple clothing promotion.
Critics accused the campaign of promoting eugenics, a scientific theory that suggests improving the human race by breeding out less desirable traits. The controversy intensified as viewers noted Sweeney’s blonde hair and blue eyes, leading to accusations that the advertisement elevated certain physical features as superior.
Regardless of its intentions, the ad has left many skeptical over the company’s vision. “The American Eagle ad is at the very least tone deaf,” senior Kimberly Jackson said. “Even if it was somehow done without the intention of being offensive, we live in a time where some people do push the narrative of typically white features being ‘superior.'”
Defenders of the campaign praised it as “anti-woke,” while American Eagle doubled down on its advertising strategy despite mounting criticism. The brand issued statements defending their creative vision, emphasizing that the campaign celebrated Sweeney’s personal style and story.
Political figures also weighed in on the debate, with Republican politicians like Senator Ted Cruz defending the advertisement and criticizing what they called an overreaction from liberal critics. Cruz posted on social media, “Wow. Now the crazy Left has come out against beautiful women. I’m sure that will poll well….” The controversy extended beyond fashion circles into broader cultural and political discussions about advertising standards and social responsibility.
Senior Abby Kunkel expressed skepticism about the campaign’s execution. “American Eagle could have picked anyone to play Sydney Sweeney’s role, and they chose a blue-eyed, blond-haired actress,” she said. “Additionally, many aspects of the ad itself seemed to be in a suggestive manner.”
The heated debate prompted competitors to respond with their own advertising campaigns. Gap launched its “Better in Denim” campaign featuring global girl group Katseye, which quickly went viral on TikTok. The diverse group’s advertisement was widely praised as a direct counter-narrative to American Eagle’s controversial approach.
“The Gap ad is a great response to the American Eagle ad,” Jackson said. “Katseye is a group that’s being very well received by younger individuals, but they’re also very diverse. Unlike the American Eagle ad, the Gap ad is showing that anyone can be iconic no matter what they look like.”
The Katseye campaign’s success highlighted ongoing conversations about representation and inclusivity in fashion marketing. As one of the first fully global girl groups, Katseye celebrates diversity across different countries and cultures. Many industry observers believed Katseye’s Gap partnership emphasized multiculturalism, contrasting with American Eagle’s approach during the same season and illustrating different strategies brands use to connect with their target audiences.
Despite the criticism, the campaign delivered successful results. According to CNBC, American Eagle reported that the Sydney Sweeney campaign was its “best ever,” leading to positive gains in new customers, sales and foot traffic. The company’s stock price surged 25 percent after hours following the earnings report. In addition, the ad became American Eagle’s most viewed ad to date, bringing in over 150 million views across multiple social media platforms.
The controversy continues generating discussion about advertising boundaries, cultural sensitivity and corporate responsibility in marketing. While both campaigns achieved their goal of capturing attention, the American Eagle controversy demonstrates how polarizing content can generate significant buzz. As brands navigate an increasingly crowded marketplace, the debate raises important questions about whether controversy-driven marketing strategies are worth the potential risks and rewards.
