The genes–jeans controversy and the state of American consumerism

At the end of July, a seemingly traditionalist advertisement for jeans sparked a nationwide debate. A month later, there is still a world of disagreement about whether the campaign has done more harm than good.

The American Eagle ad campaign, which showed  Sydney Sweeney sporting a pair of signature blue jeans, was decried by many as out of touch, reflecting a lack of diversity in the target audience that had previously been an industry standard.

In the ad, Sweeney says the following:

“Genes are passed down from parents to offspring, often determining traits like hair colour, personality, and even eye colour. My jeans are blue.”

It has been argued by critics that the ad conveys a play on words that portrays a limited standard of conventional beauty based on race, echoing historical rhetoric promulgated by American conservatives and even bordering on eugenics.

The ad, targeted toward a Gen-Z audience (15 to 25), harked back to other historic ads using young celebrity endorsements as an eye-catching sales tactic. There were several staunch critiques, many of which argued that the ad failed to address and overlooked the importance of inclusion and uniformity in perceived beauty standards. Despite this, it was able to revive American Eagle’s sales at a notable time of struggle, throwing a fresh spotlight on a brand that had slipped in sales, despite being the number one denim brand for its young consumer base.

The star’s presence with the jeans brand helped bolster its cultural hype and relevance, especially with Gen Z fans

The Times reported that by mid-August the campaign had generated a total of 4 billion online impressions, contributing to a $200 million increase in market value. This was after an unsteady Q1 and Q2 for the company, in which sales had declined. The company states that the ad has helped them avoid the undesirable fate of further financial losses.

The ad had some cultural reminiscence of the famed 1985 Levi’s jeans ad starring Mark Kamen, which drove sales up over 800% during the same year it aired. Beyonce had released the final instalment of her own, year-long, ‘Denim Cowboy’ ad campaign with Levi’s in August. The star’s presence with the jeans brand helped bolster its cultural hype and relevance, especially with Gen Z fans, with whom the artist’s music is incredibly popular.

The broader question is whether American Eagle intended to sell controversy as part of the product it marketed. The debate around this is yet to be tempered, with many believing that the argument itself around the meaning of the ad was an integral part of the company’s marketing ploy.

The cultural baggage surrounding the controversy, and the reality that the debate has been drawn out, have the potential to leave a lasting mark on the brand

The brand was quick to release a slate of follow-up ads with a more diverse cast, claiming that this was firmly about the jeans and not a broader muse on beauty standards or any other mutable characteristics.

At the beginning of August, American Eagle Outfitters released a statement, saying:

The campaign “is and always was about the jeans. Her jeans. Her story. We’ll continue to celebrate how everyone wears their AE jeans with confidence, their way. Great jeans look good on everyone.”

The long-term impact of the ad for the brand is less concrete. The cultural baggage surrounding the controversy, and the reality that the debate has been drawn out, have the potential to leave a lasting mark on the brand, which could negatively affect it. Conversely, this might be a symbol of brands now playing into, rather than figuring out how to step around, a more polarised country with starker political and ideological rifts entrenching themselves.

Whether it reflects marketing ingenuity or a branding faux pas is in the eye of the beholder. It cannot be ignored, however, that this has caused a huge groundswell in the attention the brand is receiving.