What's All This About "Jeans"?

So, American Eagle released a new ad last week with Euphoria star Sydney Sweeney. And everyone is talking about it. The controversy was further fueled after a clip of Sweeney in a denim ensemble headed toward a billboard with the tagline “Sydney Sweeney Has Great Genes.” As she finished painting the billboard and started to walk away, the actress crossed out the word “genes” and replaced it with “jeans.” Clever marketing or tone deaf? Maybe a little bit of both.

The American Eagle ad has received either immense support or criticism, with some saying AE is promoting “Aryan race” eugenics, implying white beauty superiority. I can understand why the general public would take this stance and see the ad as racially motivated. It is hard not to notice the double entendre of genes and jeans. Surely this was their intention with the double meaning. I get the cute play on words, but was this day and age really an appropriate time for an ad like that? Do they not have approval committees that would have discussed possible backlash? What I find troubling is that in a time of limited DEI resources, AE still chose to make a statement that could so easily be interpreted this way. And I can see why the public would assume it, given the overall removal of DEI initiatives and the heightened importance on the political climate.

American Eagle’s ad featuring actress Sydney Sweeney has sparked a new brand-driven conversation about beauty standards, race, and representation. And maybe it was just a “sex sells” marketing tactic, but there are plenty of other ways to accomplish that goal. I still have some issues with the sex sells approach, especially when the person they chose to represent their brand fits such a narrow image.

AE’s response to the controversy was, in my opinion, surprisingly dismissive. There was no real acknowledgment of the feedback from the very people they want to buy their products. They simply stated, “Sydney Sweeney has great jeans is and always was about the jeans. Her jeans. Her story. We will continue to celebrate how everyone wears their AE jeans with confidence, their way. Great jeans look good on everyone.”

And to top it off, it became national news that Sydney Sweeney is also a registered Republican. That took on a life of its own in connection with this ad. Mind you, it was never determined who she votes for, only that in the past she registered as a Republican. People quickly pointed out that the ad felt like a departure from the company’s past commitments to inclusive advertising and sizing.

It just feels like we are constantly being pushed toward a binary. AE is either politically liberal or conservative. Sydney Sweeney is either Republican or Democrat. AE is “woke” or not.

Brands are taking what experts call “calculated risks” by moving away from diversity, equity, and inclusion commitments. They risk losing customers by doing so. If I were on AE's team I would be worrying quite a bit right now. They certainly have lost me (not that I was ever even an avid shopper at American Eagle to begin with). As for the stock, AE shares rose more than 23 percent after Trump called it “the ‘HOTTEST’ ad out there” and said “the jeans are flying off the shelves.” Did it help AE? Kind of. Their stock jumped 23 percent after Trump’s comment but is still down 30 percent this year. Foot traffic is down too. There is no indication that jeans are selling in large quantities, so much for “all press is good press.”

American Eagle has lagged in aligning with America’s increasingly diverse consumer base. When a brand is already underperforming in cultural relevance, missteps in advertising are amplified because there is less brand equity to fall back on. Data shows that culturally fluent brands win in the marketplace.

So, was American Eagle making some kind of statement here, or did they just ignore their own risk management team? Either way, it feels like they fell back on outdated beauty marketing and a lazy “sex sells” formula. If they are guilty of anything, it is not reading the room and not realizing that including more people in your message is both good ethics and good economics. More people connecting to the ad equals more demand. But maybe that is just me.

Now for the Beyoncé portion of the jean conversation. Beyoncé is at the center of one of my posts again. Queen Bey has stepped into the denim spotlight once again after her February Levi’s debut. She is back with a Levi’s campaign, and this time it came shortly after the Sydney Sweeney AE controversy. Either this was a calculated marketing strategy by Levi’s, or it just happened to align perfectly with the timing of the debate. Beyoncé wore a bedazzled denim look with a platinum blonde wig, arriving right when denim ads were at the center of cultural discussion. This marketing makes sense. She is one of the most famous artists in the world. She just finished her world tour for her first country album, and jeans have a strong association with country aesthetics (at least I think that).

Of course, people still found something to criticize, saying the blonde wig was cultural appropriation. I’m not even sure how those who said this came to that conclusion. This all feels like taking it too far and looking for reasons to heighten the cultural, political, and social binaries.

Forbes reports that at least half of the country supports the American Eagle message, according to a YouGov poll conducted August 1 among 3,500 adults. Overall, 52 percent believe the wordplay in the tagline “Sydney Sweeney Has Great Jeans” is appropriate, while only 16 percent think it is inappropriate and 32 percent are undecided.

Interestingly, the youngest consumers, aged 18 to 29 years old (mostly GenZ and Millennials) have the highest share of inappropriates (28%) and lowest share of appropriates (36%).

What do you think?

With gratitude,

Olivia