American Eagle’s latest ad campaign featuring Sydney Sweeney is no longer just about denim. The tagline, “Sydney Sweeney has great jeans”, quickly became a cultural lightning rod.
In just a few days, this seemingly tongue-in-cheek campaign sparked viral engagement, ignited backlash, and turned into a political talking point. While it succeeded in grabbing attention, it also raised important questions about the risks and rewards of using controversy to drive sales.
Jeans vs. Genes
The tagline hinges on a simple pun: “Sydney Sweeney has great jeans.” American Eagle pushed the wordplay further with billboards reading “Sydney Sweeney has great genes” with genes crossed out and replaced by jeans.
It’s cheeky, provocative, and built on cultural relevance. Sweeney is one of the most talked-about stars in Hollywood today. She’s hot (both in terms of career momentum and appearance) and American Eagle is betting that her appeal will translate into denim sales.But while the wordplay is clever, it didn’t land equally with everyone.
The Backlash
Not all reactions were positive. Critics argued the ad reinforced Eurocentric beauty standards and upheld outdated ideals of attractiveness. Some even accused American Eagle of promoting harmful narratives and leaning into exclusionary ideals.
On the other hand, many felt the criticism was overblown. A large portion of the public dismissed the backlash as performative outrage, claiming people were reading too much into the campaign.
As the debate intensified, social media became the battleground. Influencers, politicians, and consumers alike weighed in, carrying the conversation far beyond fashion.
American Eagle responded with a public statement on August 1: “[The campaign] is and always was about the jeans. Her jeans. Her story. We'll continue to celebrate how everyone wears their AE jeans with confidence, their way. Great jeans look good on everyone.”
A Look Back: Brooke Shields and Calvin Klein, 1980
The reaction to American Eagle’s campaign invites clear comparisons to another iconic (and controversial) denim moment: Brooke Shields’ Calvin Klein ads from 1980.
At just 15 years old, Shields appeared in a suggestive campaign that declared, “You want to know what comes between me and my Calvins? Nothing.” The campaign also played with the contrast between genes and jeans. The ad was banned from multiple TV networks and became the subject of national debate around feminism, advertising ethics, and the sexualization of minors.
Yet despite the controversy, Calvin Klein’s sales increased from $10 million to $200 million in just one year. The campaign cemented Calvin Klein as a leader in the denim market and became a defining case study in the power (and danger) of provocative marketing. The parallels to today are unmistakable; including a firestorm of commentators that translates into commercial virality.
The Results for American Eagle
Controversy aside, the Sydney Sweeney campaign has delivered measurable results for American Eagle:
- $400 million in added market value within 24 hours (double the brand’s average)
- A 23% increase in stock price
- An estimated 15% bump in sales
It’s a dream outcome for any brand trying to see immediate success following a campaign but the long-term impact is harder to measure. Viral attention fades and public trust doesn’t always recover as quickly.
Final Thoughts
The Sydney Sweeney x American Eagle campaign is a case study in high-risk, high-reward marketing. It shows how fast a campaign can explode across platforms, drive revenue, and dominate headlines. But it also highlights how fragile brand perception and brand favor has become.
In today’s digital landscape, every ad is a conversation. Brands don’t just sell products, they step into the public discourse, whether they intend to or not. Going viral might feel like a win but it’s a gamble. The cost of that attention might not become clear until long after the likes and shares have faded.
So this begs the question:
Is there really no such thing as bad publicity?