American Eagle Faces Genes Ad Backlash

American Eagle's "Great Genes" Ad for Sydney Sweeney Ignites Firestorm

A new promotional effort from American Eagle, featuring the actor Sydney Sweeney, has become a flashpoint for cultural debate. The campaign's central pun, which plays on the words "jeans" and "genes," has led to accusations that it promotes eugenics and is insensitive. The controversy has unfolded against a backdrop of political polarisation in the United States, drawing in commentators from across the social and political spectrum. While some have defended the advertisement as a harmless play on words, critics argue that it taps into a dark history of racial and genetic prejudice. The brand and the actor have remained silent, allowing the controversy to grow and raising questions about the responsibilities of advertisers in a volatile cultural landscape.

The Campaign's Content

In the American Eagle promotion, Sydney Sweeney, known for her roles in Euphoria and The White Lotus, is showcased in a series of denim outfits. The tagline, "Sydney Sweeney Has Great Jeans," is the central element of the promotion. In one video clip, Sweeney, who is blonde and blue-eyed, appears before a poster of herself emblazoned with the words, "Sydney Sweeney has great genes." The word "genes" is then struck through and substituted with "jeans." Another clip shows the actor explaining how genes pass down traits such as the colour of hair and eyes, before she notes that her jeans are coloured blue. This direct reference to her physical attributes has become a focal point of the controversy, with many seeing it as a deliberate choice by the brand.

Accusations of Eugenic Undertones

The campaign quickly drew sharp criticism online. Commentators on social media labelled the advertisement "tone deaf," claiming it echoed the rhetoric of white supremacy and eugenics. A user on the platform X, formerly known as Twitter, highlighted the choice of a "blonde, blue eyed, white woman" for a campaign focused on "perfect genetics," finding it unsettling, particularly given the present climate in America. The timing of the campaign, which coincided with a push by the Trump administration to dismantle initiatives for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), has amplified these concerns. Another TikTok user asserted that the language used in advertising is "never unintentional," suggesting the campaign was a coded signal to the growing conservative sentiment in the nation.

Historical Context of Eugenics in Advertising

The term "good genes" has a fraught history, deeply connected to the eugenics movement of the early 20th century. This discredited theory advocated for improving the human population through selective breeding and was used to justify racist and discriminatory policies, including forced sterilisation. Advertising in that era sometimes incorporated eugenic themes, promoting products by associating them with ideas of racial purity and genetic superiority. Critics of the American Eagle promotion argue that, intentionally or not, the ad's language and imagery tap into this dark past. They suggest that in a society still grappling with the legacy of these ideas, using such language in a mainstream advertising campaign is irresponsible and dangerous.

Image Credit - The Telegraph

Sydney Sweeney's Previous Controversies

This isn't the first occasion Sweeney has been at the centre of a political storm. In 2022, criticism was directed at her after photographs from her mother's birthday party showed guests in hats reminiscent of Donald Trump's "Make America Great Again" slogan. At the time, Sweeney responded by asking the public to "stop making assumptions." More recently, she collaborated with the brand Dr. Squatch to sell soap produced from her bath water, a move that also drew criticism. Some commentators, like scholar Sayantani DasGupta, have pointed out that "soap has historically been a very fraught, racialized product," further complicating the optics of the promotional campaign by American Eagle. These prior incidents have contributed to a perception of Sweeney as a figure aligned with conservative politics, a perception that has fuelled the current backlash.

A Divided Public and Political Reaction

The public's reaction to the campaign has been far from monolithic. While many have condemned the ad, others have defended it, dismissing the controversy as an overreaction. On the American political right, some have commended the promotion as a blow against "wokeness" in advertising. One X user wrote, "Woke advertising is dead, Sydney Sweeney killed it." US Senator Ted Cruz also weighed in, tweeting, "Now the crazy Left has come out against beautiful women. I'm sure that will poll well." This divided reaction reflects the broader cultural and political polarisation in the United States, where advertising has become another battleground in the so-called "culture wars." The controversy has been amplified by media outlets on both sides of the political spectrum, each framing the story to fit their own narrative.

The Brand's Silence and "Damage Control"

By Tuesday morning, no public statements about the backlash had been issued by either Sydney Sweeney or American Eagle. This silence has been interpreted in various ways. Some see it as a sign that the brand is hoping the controversy will simply fade away. Others, like marketing expert Lola Bakare, have called the brand's lack of response "egregious." Bakare suggested that the company should at least acknowledge the criticism, even if it does not pull the campaign. There is evidence to suggest that the brand is aware of the negative reaction. After a series of Instagram posts featuring Sweeney, the company posted an image of a woman of colour with the caption, "AE has great jeans." This was seen by many online as a disingenuous attempt at "damage control." The company also disabled comments on LinkedIn posts from its executives that praised the campaign.

Image Credit - The Economic Times

Echoes of Past Advertising Controversies

Comparisons have also been drawn between the American Eagle promotion and Brooke Shields's controversial Calvin Klein ads from 1980. In those ads, a then 15-year-old Shields delivered the provocative line, "You want to know what comes between me and my Calvins? Nothing." Those ads were criticised for their sexualisation of a minor. Some commentators see a parallel in the way both campaigns use a young, white, female star to sell a product through provocative, and in the case of the Sweeney ad, potentially loaded, messaging. The Shields ads also featured similar messaging about passing down characteristics from generation to generation, with one ad stating, "The secret of life lies hidden in the genetic code."

The Bigger Picture: Advertising in a Polarised Era

The controversy surrounding American Eagle highlights the challenges of advertising in a hyper-partisan and socially conscious era. Brands are under increasing pressure to be aware of the historical and cultural context of their messaging. What might have once been seen as a clever pun can now be interpreted as a political statement. Marketing professor Marcus Collins suggests that the controversy could have been avoided with a more inclusive approach, stating, "You can either say this was ignorance, or this was laziness, or say that this is intentional. Either one of those three aren't good." Shalini Shankar, a linguistic anthropologist, argues that the campaign feeds into a "limited concept of aspirational beauty."

The Financial Bottom Line

Despite the widespread criticism, or perhaps because of it, American Eagle's stock surged by 10 per cent in the days following the campaign's launch, adding more than $200 million to the company's value. This raises uncomfortable questions about the nature of publicity in the modern era. It suggests that for some brands, any publicity, even negative publicity, can be good for business. The controversy has undoubtedly brought a huge amount of attention to American Eagle and its products. Whether this will translate into long-term brand loyalty or damage is yet to be seen.

Image Credit - Sydney Morning Herald

The Role of the Celebrity Endorser

The controversy also raises questions about the responsibility of celebrity endorsers. Sydney Sweeney's association with the campaign, coupled with her past political controversies, has made her a lightning rod for criticism. While she has not commented on the ad, her willingness to participate in a campaign with such a loaded message has been questioned. Writer E.B. Johnson expressed concern over the homage to the Brooke Shields ads, questioning why adult women today are still willing to recreate or reference advertising that originally caused such harm. The incident serves as a cautionary tale for celebrities about the potential pitfalls of aligning themselves with brands and campaigns that could be interpreted as politically or socially insensitive.

Conclusion: A Campaign of Consequences

The "Great Genes" promotion by American Eagle is more than a simple advertisement; it is a cultural phenomenon that has exposed deep divisions in American society. The controversy has touched on issues of race, politics, history, and the role of advertising in modern culture. While the brand may have achieved its goal of creating a viral moment, it has also inadvertently waded into a complex and sensitive debate. The long-term ramifications of the promotion for American Eagle and Sydney Sweeney remain to be seen, but it has undoubtedly served as a powerful reminder of the potential for advertising to both reflect and shape the cultural landscape.