When Copy Ignites Culture

American Eagle, the U.S. fashion brand best known for its denim and casualwear, launched its Fall campaign in late July under the tagline “Sydney Sweeney Has Great Jeans.” The rollout was massive: a 3D billboard in Times Square, a full takeover of the Las Vegas Sphere, and a strong push across TikTok, Instagram, and BeReal. The idea was straightforward, to connect with Gen Z through one of Hollywood’s most prominent rising stars. The campaign quickly landed on headlines and sparked a wave of public reaction.

Why the campaign drew so much attention

The core issue was the slogan itself. The wordplay around “great jeans” was heard as “great genes.” In the videos, Sweeney speaks about inheritance while the camera lingers on her blue eyes and blonde hair. Critics argued that the messaging carried undertones of eugenics and racism, while also pointing out how overtly sexualized the actress was portrayed – the camera focused heavily on her chest and body rather than the actual product, the jeans. Commentators accused the brand of appealing to the “male gaze” instead of young women.

TikTok became the main battleground, with memes and parodies going viral and turning the ad into a punchline. The controversy gained further traction when high-profile figures outside fashion joined the debate. Global music star Doja Cat, with millions of followers and a strong Gen Z fan base, shared a parody of the campaign, amplifying the backlash.

The political undertones

The controversy also carried a political dimension. Conservative commentators—and even Donald Trump—praised the campaign, while younger and more progressive audiences condemned it. The result was polarization along generational and ideological lines. Engagement online skyrocketed, but that didn’t translate into real-world sales: American Eagle’s stock jumped more than 20%, but in-store traffic reportedly dropped nearly 9% year-over-year.

The Sydney Sweeney factor

Sweeney, known for her roles in Euphoria and The White Lotus, has become one of the most talked-about actresses of her generation. Yet public perception of her is split: the right sees her as an “anti-woke” symbol, while the left often criticizes her for reinforcing stereotypes. In the U.S. cultural and political context, her rumored Republican leanings added another layer of complexity. For American Eagle, partnering with Sweeney ensured global visibility—but the combination of their creative execution and the choice of ambassador may have been the turning point. This raises the question: did American Eagle deliberately test cultural boundaries, or did the controversy spiral beyond what the brand anticipated?

Provocation as a strategy in denim marketing

American Eagle is far from the first denim brand to embrace provocation. Calvin Klein shocked audiences back in 1980 with Brooke Shields and the line “You want to know what comes between me and my Calvins? Nothing.”, a slogan considered both scandalous and brilliant. Levi’s followed in the mid-80s with its iconic Nick Kamen laundromat commercial, which redefined masculinity in pop culture. Denim has long carried symbolic weight, serving as a canvas for campaigns that push boundaries – whether through sexual innuendo or by challenging societal norms.

Brand and ambassador response

As criticism spread across social media, American Eagle remained silent for three days before posting a short Instagram statement: “Is and always was about the jeans…” The move left space for memes and critics to dominate the narrative. The brand neither apologized nor withdrew the campaign, instead holding its ground. Meanwhile, Sydney Sweeney has remained silent on the matter, continuing with her professional commitments.

The eternal question: is all PR good PR?

The case highlights how creative risk without cultural sensitivity can quickly escalate into reputational damage. If the slogan was intentionally ambiguous to spark viral attention, the result was a conversation that positioned American Eagle at the center of cultural discourse—but not in a flattering way. The three days of silence gave social media free rein to shape the narrative, and the eventual short, unapologetic response did little to soften criticism.

The lingering question remains: was this a calculated communication strategy—a signal of consistency and risk tolerance—or did the brand and its ambassador lose control of a situation they failed to foresee? While the campaign temporarily eroded trust among certain consumers, the true long-term reputational impact remains to be seen.