American Eagle Outfitters recently launched a high-profile advertising campaign featuring actor Sydney Sweeney, intending to create a significant buzz. However, the campaign, particularly its use of the phrase “Sydney Sweeney has great jeans,” inadvertently sparked a widespread public debate far beyond what the fashion retailer likely anticipated, touching upon sensitive issues of race and historical perceptions of beauty.
Central to the controversy was a clever yet problematic wordplay that alternated between “jeans” and “genes.” While the main campaign focused on denim, a teaser video, quickly circulated on social media, showed Sweeney discussing how “genes are passed down from parents to offspring, often determining traits like hair color, personality and even eye color. My jeans are blue.” This juxtaposition immediately drew criticism for its perceived insensitivity and association with a discredited and historically sinister concept.
Critics quickly pointed out the disturbing link between the phrase “good genes” and the pseudoscientific theory of eugenics. This theory, which gained popularity in the early 20th century and was tragically embraced by Nazi Germany to justify the concept of an “Aryan master race,” advocated for improving humanity through selective breeding. The implication of the ad, even if unintended, evoked these dark historical connotations, especially when associated with a blonde-haired, blue-eyed actor.
Marketing experts weighed in on the misstep. Marcus Collins, an assistant professor of marketing at the University of Michigan, suggested the backlash could have been averted had the campaign featured models of diverse racial backgrounds, thus broadening the interpretation of “good genes” beyond a narrow, ethnocentric beauty standard. He posited that the oversight could be attributed to ignorance, laziness, or even intentional provocation, none of which reflect positively on the brand.
This incident isn’t isolated in the annals of advertising history, echoing past brand controversies where attempts at edginess backfired. Comparisons were drawn to Calvin Klein’s suggestive 1980 jeans ads featuring a young Brooke Shields and Pepsi’s ill-fated 2017 commercial with Kendall Jenner, both of which generated significant public outcry. Such episodes highlight the fine line brands walk when trying to differentiate themselves through provocative messaging.
The controversy also juxtaposed sharply with American Eagle’s prior commendable efforts in diversity and inclusion. The retailer had previously been lauded for its diverse marketing, including a denim hijab in 2017 and offering a wide range of sizes for its Aerie lingerie brand. Furthermore, the company has an active DEI program, even awarding scholarships for employees driving anti-racism and social justice initiatives, making the recent ad’s misstep particularly perplexing.
Cultural and linguistic anthropologist Shalini Shankar of Northwestern University voiced concerns that the “genes” versus “jeans” wordplay inadvertently reinforced a limited and exclusive concept of beauty. Similarly, marketing professor Melissa Murphy from Carnegie Mellon University, while acknowledging certain positive aspects of the campaign, expressed hope that it would expand its representation beyond just Sydney Sweeney for the brand’s long-term benefit.
Beyond the ad itself, the campaign brought renewed attention to Sydney Sweeney’s rising career and the personal impact of fame. While the 27-year-old actor has achieved significant success through roles in popular series like “Euphoria” and “White Lotus,” she has candidly spoken about the loss of privacy that accompanies her celebrity status, underscoring the broader implications of public scrutiny on individuals in the spotlight.
Leave a Reply