Did American Eagle’s “Sydney Sweeney Has Great Jeans” advertising campaign make veiled comments about genetic superiority, or was it simply making a pun to emphasize her well-known beauty? Does it perpetuate the longstanding use of female sexuality to sell products? Was American Eagle’s intention to invoke themes of eugenics and white supremacy while bringing back advertising techniques designed for the male gaze? Honestly, I have absolutely no idea.
But what I do know is that for weeks, this advertising campaign dominated the minds of social media users, political leaders — including the president — and brands across the world, to the point that I’m sitting here writing an opinion piece on the controversy. Was that intentional? Absolutely. Did American Eagle know they would elicit this type of reaction? Absolutely.
Ahead of the campaign’s launch in July, American Eagle’s Chief Marketing Officer Craig Brommers made this remark: “The campaign is definitely going to push buttons and have fun, and probably be a little more sensual than we’ve been in recent years.” American Eagle’s marketing team absolutely recognized and potentially orchestrated the double entendres laced throughout their campaign. They knew exactly what kind of attention they would get. It’s the kind of attention that raises stock prices. The kind of attention that sells the entire stock of a single clothing item in no time (the “Sydney Jean” sold out within 48 hours of the launch). The kind of attention that no matter what your stance is, you can’t help but talk about it.
This is outrage marketing. Crisis and Reputation Strategist Molly McPherson describes this technique as sparking debate, driving engagement and riding the attention wave. That’s exactly what American Eagle did. They intentionally provoked consumers by creating advertisements that spark debates on real, impactful societal conversations like the legacy of eugenics, white supremacy, oversexualizing women and pretty privilege. And they took advantage of these emotional, meaningful topics to sell their back-to-school collection?
Outrage marketing works. We’ve seen it time and time again. Take Brooke Shields’ 1980 jean advertisement for Calvin Klein, one that mirrors Sydney Sweeney’s almost exactly. Both advertisements used controversy and easily misconstrued wordplay to intentionally generate brand awareness. And they succeeded in generating a massive public reaction to the point that even our generation can debate whether or not she was too young or oversexualized. Not only did Calvin Klein’s sales increase post-release, but this controversial moment in advertising history propelled the brand, through interest and intrigue, as an iconic, major player in the fashion industry.
We let brands do this. How can they not when we buy into it so easily? We buy into it because our political climate has become so charged that blatant manipulation like this is not only accepted but encouraged. If you don’t agree with the contents or messages of an advertisement or marketing campaign, don’t engage with it. It’s that simple. No need to take to Twitter or Instagram or TikTok with your opinions; that’s exactly what the brands want. The buzz brings the bucks, and American Eagle wanted that reaction.
If you don’t want to encourage politically-laced messages embedded in retail advertisements, then don’t feed into the cycle that allows marketing teams across the world to use consumers in manipulative ways.
