That Sydney Sweeney Campaign: American Eagle’s Marketing Misfire

Illustrations by Grace McKenna

‘Sydney Sweeney has great jeans/genes.’

It’s a tagline that’s ricocheted across social media, sparking debate and criticism of American Eagle’s latest campaign. Plastered across the internet, Sydney Sweeney’s blonde hair and blue eyes fronted AE’s advertising strategy, which leaned heavily upon the wordplay of “jeans” and “genes”.

Earlier this year, American Eagle reported a shares loss of 18% in extended trading, adding that the company anticipated sales to drop by 3%. All things considered, it wasn’t looking too great for the all-American household name. Enter the Sydney Sweeney collaboration, launched on July 23rd, where a now-infamous digital advert features her voiceover delivering the line that stirred controversy: ‘Genes are passed down from parents to offspring, often determining traits like hair colour, personality and even eye colour… My jeans are blue.’ The controversy in question? Many critics argued that American Eagle’s campaign was a thinly veiled reference to the theory of eugenics.

So, what is eugenics and what does it have to do with Sydney Sweeney? According to the National Human Genome Research Institute (NIH), eugenics is defined as ‘the scientific erroneous and immoral theory of “racial improvement” … which gained popularity during the early 20th century.’ Closely intertwined with eugenics is the ideology of scientific racism, a concept which appropriates the authority and methods of science to promote white supremacy and assert the supposed inferiority of non-white races. Both eugenics and scientific racism rose to prominence globally in the 20th century, drawing support from contemporary currents of xenophobia, colonialism, and antisemitism. Their influence extended far beyond their academic origins, shaping public policy and cultural narratives in deeply troubling ways.

So how do these outdated and historical theories connect to American Eagle and Sydney Sweeney? While the American Eagle campaign may have been angled towards a nostalgic “Americana” aesthetic, the casting of Sydney Sweeney – paired with the ad’s visceral language - prompted many to see something more unsettling beneath the surface. With the spectre of eugenics at the back of our minds alongside Sweeney’s embodiment of a particular beauty – blonde hair, blue eyes – the campaign’s employment of ‘genes’ and ‘jeans’ becomes more complex than just witty wordplay. It evokes a striking allusion to the scientific racism of white supremacy, centring on the idealisation of ‘genes’ like Sydney Sweeney. Vanity Fair commented on the ad’s ‘lowest effort’ to make the campaign sensical, noting the confusion of the genes/jeans wordplay as Sydney follows her two-lined summary of genetics with the jarring conclusion, “My jeans are blue.” It begs the question: was the campaign strategy based in calculation or thoughtlessness?

Speculation gets us to many places – or nowhere at all – depending on the way you look at it. But despite the backlash, American Eagle’s stats seem to prove that there’s no such thing as bad publicity. Forbes reports that their stock is up by 20% since the campaign’s launch, with “The Sydney Jean” sold out entirely. Though we weren’t privy to the creative boardrooms in which this campaign was conceived, American Eagle’s messaging suggests one of two possibilities: calculated intent or careless oversight. Given the current socio-political climate in the U.S., many find it difficult to accept that the brand simply was not thinking. Anti-immigration, racism, and pro-eugenic politics make up the undercurrent of Trump’s America, and the campaign’s implied nods to white superiority – compounded with Sydney Sweeney’s emerging alleged Republican affiliations – ignited and perpetuated a media firestorm.

After all, modern advertisement doesn’t exist in a vacuum (PepsiCo’s 2017 backlash comes to mind). Perhaps, then, the phrase “marketing misfire” may need a qualifier: “intentional” or “tactical”. Multi-million-dollar brands don’t just stumble into controversy; they often court it. As CNN put it, the American Eagle campaign functions as a ‘white-supremacist dog whistle’, drawing attention precisely by provoking outrage. We are living in the age of a hyper-visible marketplace where brands sell more than products – they sell ideologies. Calculated or careless, American Eagle’s success demonstrates the ways in which controversy can amplify reach. But, in the absence of accountability, that amplification risks normalising harmful narratives, including the quiet resurgence of eugenics-coded messaging. This campaign ultimately underlines commerce’s co-opting of ideology, a cultural moment that certainly demands further ethical scrutiny. American Eagle’s campaign didn’t simply revive “Americana” – it repackaged racialised beauty ideals in a slogan, a quiet nod to a legacy of exclusion dressed up as nostalgia.