The goal of any ad is to get attention. American Eagle’s fall campaign starring Sydney Sweeney did exactly that, just not in the way they planned.

When creating ads, you often try to build a hook; something that tells a story and has the potential to go viral. When you have Sydney Sweeney in front of the camera, that’s your golden ticket to virality. She’s one of the most recognizable faces in pop culture right now, and anything she’s in is bound to grab attention.

But in this case, the entire campaign hinged on a simple pun: “Sydney Sweeney Has Great Jeans” playing on the word “genes” (genetics).

What was meant to be clever and playful ended up sparking one of the biggest marketing debates of the year.

The problem: a pun with a dark history

The issue wasn’t the jeans; it was the wordplay.

In the ad, Sydney Sweeney, a white woman with blonde hair and blue eyes, talks about how “genes are passed down from parents to offspring, determining traits.” Then the camera lands on the punchline, her “great jeans.”

What was intended as a harmless wordplay was seen by some as tone-deaf. Critics pointed out that connecting “good genes” with beauty has an uncomfortable history. The phrase has ties to eugenics, a racist ideology built around the idea of genetic superiority and “pure” traits.

The campaign quickly drew comparisons to old Nazi propaganda and early 20th-century beauty standards that celebrated the same features Sweeney represents. Whether fair or not, once that interpretation took hold online, the outrage took over.

Why it became a huge story

The controversy spread fast because it landed right in the middle of the cultural and political noise:

• Representation and Diversity: In an era where audiences expect variety in who gets shown, focusing on one beauty type, and pairing it with the phrase “good genes” felt out of touch to some.
• The Culture War Effect: As soon as criticism started, the other side jumped in to defend the ad as “anti-woke.” Overnight, a denim commercial became a political talking point.
• The Real Message Got Lost: The campaign actually included a mental health charity tie-in, but that part was completely overshadowed by the backlash.

The other side: when controversy helps

Here’s where I think differently. I don’t believe this ad hurt American Eagle. If anything, it helped them.

People didn’t say the jeans were bad. They didn’t say the quality was poor or the brand was overpriced. They just debated the ad. That’s an entirely different kind of problem, one that still keeps the brand top of mind.

Millions of people who might never have thought about American Eagle in years ended up searching “Sydney Sweeney American Eagle ad” on YouTube and talking about it on TikTok. That’s organic visibility most brands can only dream of.

Even if people were criticizing it, they were still saying “American Eagle” over and over again. And when those same people need a new pair of jeans later on, they’ll probably think, almost unconsciously, of the name they just spent all week hearing.

That’s how brand recall works. Negative attention only becomes a problem when it damages trust in the product itself. Here, the outrage was about interpretation, not quality, which makes it a surprisingly effective form of marketing.

The psychology behind the backlash

People online react quickly, often emotionally, and once something goes viral, it stops being about what actually happened. It becomes about taking sides.

Outrage spreads faster than logic, because being offended gives people a sense of purpose and belonging. The internet rewards that. Every angry post gets shared, every dramatic comment gets engagement.

In that environment, it’s easy for a simple pun to turn into a cultural lightning rod. But controversy also keeps the brand alive in public conversation, long after most ads would be forgotten.

How American Eagle could have handled it

1. Respond Briefly and Confidently: A short statement clarifying intent would have been enough: “The campaign was meant to be lighthearted and fun, a simple play on words celebrating our denim.” No over-apology, no corporate panic, just clarity.
2. Redirect to the Positive: The mental health donation could have been pushed harder in follow-up content. Turning the conversation back to that would have reminded people the campaign had good intentions.
3. Keep Creating, Don’t Retreat: The worst move after a backlash is to disappear. Following up with fresh, diverse visuals and confident messaging would have helped shift the focus from controversy to consistency.

The takeaway

Controversy doesn’t always equal failure. Sometimes it’s the best publicity a brand can get, especially when it doesn’t attack the product itself.

The “Jeans vs. Genes” campaign may have been misread by some, but it worked in one undeniable way: it made people remember American Eagle.

In marketing, awareness is the hardest thing to buy. This campaign got it for free.

So yes, it stirred debate, but it also reminded everyone that American Eagle still makes the kind of jeans worth talking about. And the next time someone needs a new pair, that name will already be in their head.

So yes, it stirred debate, but it also reminded everyone that American Eagle still makes the kind of jeans worth talking about. And the next time someone needs a new pair, that name will already be in their head.