“Good Jeans” or Bad Intentions? A CCI Perspective on a Controversial AE Campaign

By Ellie Ellien on Unsplash

The Creative and Cultural Industries, specifically the area of advertising, were anything but quiet this summer. The rolloutof a particular set of ads highlighted how the way in which things are framed and promoted can have a tremendous impact on audiences. Today we are going to dive into the world of fashion marketing and how the internet was set ablaze in July 2025 when American Eagle Outfitters launched the campaign, “Sydney Sweeney Has Great Jeans".

This campaign is interesting in that the attention the ads have engendered far and away eclipses the clothing it is purporting to promote. What initially appeared to be an interesting play on words when the campaign launched, quickly became the center of a controversy. Some critiques of the ads noted that this clever play on words could also be interpreted as having underlying themes of racism and eugenics. Critics of those critiques jumped into the fray defending the ads and labeling the backlash as an overreaction.  Finally, a third cohort of critics came for the campaign in terms of its comparisons to the Brooke Shields Calvin Klein ads from the 1980s. This might be the most interesting take from a marketing standpoint. While the other critiques have become talking points on the political spectrum, this viewpoint takes more of an issue with the actual creative material the campaign has produced. Some commenters have noted the campaign’s effectiveness, while others view it as completely unimaginative and simply downright lazy. With opinions pouring in from across the cultural and political spectrum, one thing is clear: regardless of the campaign’s intent, its real-world impact has sparked a conversation that’s impossible to ignore.

By Toa Heftiba on Unsplash

Launching American Eagle Outfitter’s Fall ‘25 Campaign the ads feature the slogan “Sydney Sweeney has great jeans”. Per AEO Inc. this campaign “is a return to essential denim dressing and a celebration of what the beloved brand does best: making customers look and feel good in AE Jeans.” Designed to spotlight denim fashion, the campaign also took a philanthropic turn as the according to American Eagle, proceeds from the limited-edition Sydney Jean would benefit the Crisis Text Line, a nonprofit focused on mental health and domestic violence support. It is interesting to note that this information is not highlighted in the ad campaign anywhere, it is only mentioned in print on the product page.

So what is going on in these ads? In one of the campaign videos, Sydney Sweeney looks directly into the camera and says: “Genes are passed down from parents to offspring, often determining traits like hair color, personality, and even eye color… my jeans are blue,” before slipping on her jeans. Another version of the ad features Sweeney quite literally crossing out the word “genes” in the phrase “Sydney Sweeney has great genes” and replacing it with “jeans”.  If the intent here was to simply amuse with clever word play it seems that the ads have missed the mark, as almost immediately the ads drew criticism with accusations of racism, eugenics, and tone-deaf branding.

By Matt Artz on Unsplash

An Article on LiveNowFox noted, “Some viewers saw the ad as celebrating a narrow set of physical traits, with critics arguing that it subtly implied these traits were inherently superior. Others noted the historical use of the phrase "good genes" in the context of eugenics—the discredited theory of improving human populations through selective breeding—which has ties to racist ideologies, including those promoted in Nazi Germany and early 20th-century America. Civil rights advocates and scholars have also warned that language celebrating "desirable" traits can unintentionally reinforce stereotypes and long-standing beauty standards that prioritize whiteness.”  So when American Eagle launched a campaign utilizing a play on the phrase “good genes,” social media users were quick to call out the uncomfortable parallels. The ad’s stark aesthetic and Sydney Sweeney’s monotone delivery seemed to amplify the unease.

However, it is also worth considering the broader cultural context in which this ad was released. The campaign emerged amid a wave of nationalism and a growing “Buy American” movement, fueled by economic tensions and rising tariffs. Under the current political administration, there’s been a strong push to prioritize American-made products. According to conservative outlets like AMAC, the controversy surrounding the ad has been blown out of proportion. The perspective from this side of the controversy states that American Eagle simply used a popular celebrity in their campaign to promote American denim. They present the view that to look for a deeper interpretation is reading too far into it. In an opinion piece for FOX News Former press assistant for Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), Lauren Appell, called the eugenics link "outrageous."

By Fujiphilm on Unsplash

A third view on the campaign looks at the controversy with a critical eye toward the actual merit of the marketing.  In a recent NPR article, Allen Adamson, co-founder of the brand marketing firm Metaforce, weighed in. Speaking to Morning Edition, he speculated that American Eagle may have been aiming to “disrupt” an oversaturated media landscape. “People remember disruption. People remember the edge. Pushing buttons. And this is really important for products that are commodities. Jeans are commodities. You can get them for $20 at Costco and the Gap. And they’re selling them for a lot more than that.”

According to Adamson, diversity in advertising has become so normalized that brands are now searching for new, sometimes controversial, ways to stand out. “There was first this box-checking phase, where you wanted many diverse people representing your brand, because inclusivity was good for business. When consumers saw themselves in ads, they thought, ‘Hey, this product is for me.’ But once that became commonplace and less noticeable, brands pivoted. Now, some are looking for individuals who can represent more than one ‘bucket.’” And it worked. People noticed. The ad made headlines. The brand became the subject of countless think pieces, TikToks, and Twitter threads.

Still, others were less impressed with the marketing pointing out that it is basically a poorly executed re-hash of the problematic Calvin Klein ads from the 1980s. In a piece for Vanity Fair in August 2025, Kase Wickman comments, “The ad is a weak imitation of the controversial ‘80s Brooke Shields Calvin Klein ads, where the then-15-year-old declared that nothing came between her and her Calvins. Vintage video cameras and grainy filters, that “all-American” look of a simple white top and blue jeans, the whole undone perfection thing—the American Eagle clips check all the boxes. It’s not an homage, it’s a retread: The campaign has no self-aware winks to reflect that mindsets may have evolved in the more than four decades since Shields’ time in her Calvins.”  Wickman also notes that, “It’s the lowest of effort on the part of AE.” Wickman goes on to raise an interesting point when she juxtaposes the AE marketing against a Levi’s campaign, “You might ask, for an item as classic as blue jeans, is there anything new to be done? Actually, yes! Take one look at Beyoncé’s Levi’s campaign, the fourth installment of which just dropped. It’s visually cool, it has a little plot, and she also is hot while wearing jeans. And, in this tale of two denim ads, it’s proof that even though jeans are basic, the way companies sell them doesn’t have to be.”

By Markus Spiske on Unsplash

Perhaps Marcus Collins, assistant professor of marketing at the University of Michigan’s Ross School of Business, has placed the AE campaign in the perfect frame when he was quoted in an APnews article as saying, “You can either say this was ignorance, or this was laziness, or say that this is intentional. Either one of the three aren’t good.”

As students of CCI, we can also view this controversy through the lens of consumerism. The Puritanical Eye: Hyper-Mediation, Sex on Film, and the Disavowal of Desire argues that in late-stage capitalism, “We’ve been stripped and socialized out of any real political energy and agency. Our ability to consume is the only thing remaining that’s ‘ours’ in late capitalism, and as a result it’s become a stand-in for (or perhaps the sole defining quality of) every aspect of being alive today.”  In the current society we exist in if protests feel inaccessible and voting powerless, attention naturally shifts to the one area society teaches us to control: consumption. “When the act of consuming is all you have left, and indeed the only thing society tells you is valuable and meaningful, the act must necessarily be a moral one, which is why people send themselves down manic spirals deciding what or who is ‘problematic’ or not. For us, the stakes are that high now.” This leaves consumers operating within a system that responds more to profit than protest. When consumption becomes the primary space to express values, we have to ask: is that because it’s the most effective form of influence, or simply the most accessible?

By Nick Fewings on Unsplash

Whichever way you look at it, one thing is clear: this wasn’t just an ad about jeans. It served as a powerful reminder that in the creative industries, context is everything, and that people are reshaping how we influence our political and social landscape. Boundaries are being pushed, and brands are learning to provoke disruption in an oversaturated media environment. What is your take on this campaign and it’s wide-reaching implications? Or do you think it has wide-reaching implications? We would love to hear you thoughts and opinions as we continue to monitor how the Creative and Cultural Industries impact our world.