.jpg)
In today's highly connected world, a single advertisement can ignite a firestorm of controversy, spreading globally in minutes. The potential for a public backlash is a constant, looming threat for ad agencies, significantly influencing their strategic decisions throughout the campaigns.
The recent ‘Sydney Sweeney Has Great Jeans’ campaign by clothing and accessories retailer American Eagle provides a potent example of this dynamic, raising questions about a brand's intent, the interpretation of its message, and the fine line between an unfortunate misstep and a ‘calculated risk’ for increased publicity.
When to Play it Safe vs When to Take a Stand
Brands have the option to always operate in a “safe zone.” This approach minimizes risk but often results in bland, forgettable advertising. The decision to step outside this comfort zone should be rooted in a deeper purpose.
Sneha Iype, Executive Producer at Nirvana Films, says: “There is no reason to take any risks strategically unless there is an interest or ideology behind the idea that the brand hopes to bring to the viewers' minds and start a conversation of some kind around it in relation to what the brand stands for. It can't be only in the optics of it. It has to go deeper.”
A calculated risk isn't about courting controversy for its own sake. It's about taking a bold stance on a topic that aligns with the brand's core values, aiming to spark a meaningful dialogue. The brand, however, must be prepared to face the consequences.
Iype adds, “Once you take a calculated risk, you should be willing to face any consequence around it. Given the social media construct, however, it's never a dialogue. It's usually only a monologue. But yes, brands never go seeking negative publicity. It's unpredictable, and if that happens, the team needs to know how much damage control to do or sometimes even to just sit back and watch while the world, in all likelihood, would move on to the next sensational thing. In the meantime, some heads could roll at the corporate end if the leaders aren't aligned to take that calculated risk.”
The American Eagle Case: Misinterpretation or Flawed Strategy?
American Eagle’s ‘Sydney Sweeney Has Great Jeans’ advertisement is being widely criticised for its perceived association with the idea of white superiority. The ad, featuring the American actress in a full American Eagle denim outfit, kicks off with her delivering a pun-laden line, “Genes are passed down from parents to offspring, often determining traits like hair colour, personality, and even eye colour. My jeans are blue.” With some netizens calling it a Neo-Nazi campaign, the double entendre brings up questions on whether this was the agency's deliberate strategy or just an unintended misinterpretation.
Sumanto Chattopadhyay, former South Asia Executive Creative Director at Ogilvy, says, “We don't know if it was the ad agency's strategy to give out a pro-eugenics message or to spark controversy. In fact, American Eagle's messaging has in the past been associated with diversity, so it seems unlikely. Creative people tend to love wordplay, and this could be a case of wordplay being misinterpreted.”
“This misinterpretation could have happened because the atmosphere is so charged right now with white supremacists' hands being strengthened by the right-wing government and DEI being under attack from the president himself. Right-wing politicians backing the American Eagle campaign may have further led to the belief that the white superiority messaging was deliberate. If indeed it was deliberate, then it may have backfired,” Chattopadhyay added.
American President Donald Trump posted regarding the campaign on his Truth Social, saying, “Sydney Sweeney, a registered Republican, has the “HOTTEST” ad out there. It’s for American Eagle, and the jeans are “flying off the shelves.” Go get ‘em Sydney!”. The support from Trump may have also inadvertently legitimised the negative readings of the ad's message.
Isn't Bad Press Good? – A Double-Edged Sword
This brings us to a pervasive, and often debated, theory in marketing: that any publicity is good publicity, even if it is negative. The idea is that the controversy itself generates a massive amount of free media attention, driving brand awareness and keeping the company in the public conversation.
Clarifying the point, Sahil Shah, CEO at Dentsu Creative Isobar, says, “Purely from a marketing point of view, the ad has worked, including the controversy. Suddenly, people have taken notice of the brand, and some items on American Eagle's website are now out of stock. While this could be short-lived – and the product still needs to deliver for word-of-mouth to spread – this is the job of marketing. The goal is to generate a lift in demand, and then hope the product or service delivers, leading to more purchases. From a marketing perspective, the controversy has mostly worked for them. However, from a comms perspective, I don't think it's morally right to release something that is racially discriminatory, especially in a Western context.”
Delving further into the success factor of these precarious methods, Sumanto Chattopadhyay says, “While American Eagle share prices went up, footfalls at stores went down. Today, brands need to think a few steps ahead with their messaging – sussing out potential for misinterpretation or backlash. In a diverse society, brands need to bend over backwards to be culturally sensitive. This would be all the more critical in India, where a controversy like this could lead to vandalism, government-backed censure, and banning.”
Shah solidifies the point by saying that, “Advertising mirrors society and culture, while also having the power to shape both of them. From the Western perspective, the [American Eagle] ad is somewhat derogatory, poking at both society and culture, creating a certain zeitgeist centered on a form of racial discrimination in America. The fact that the likes of the President had to speak positively about it says a lot about where America is headed towards as a country. As someone in the advertising fraternity in both the world and India, I feel it could have been avoided. A simple twist with ‘If Sydney Sweeney has got great genes, so do xyz folks,’ could’ve levelled up and become a big campaign.”
While a brand might take a calculated risk to start a conversation, the outcome is rarely fully within its control. The American Eagle case demonstrates that even a seemingly innocuous phrase can be misconstrued and spark a significant backlash. Agencies must weigh the potential for increased publicity against the risks of alienating a portion of their customer base, damaging their reputation, and facing real-world consequences.
The true measure of a calculated risk lies not just in its intent, but in a brand's ability to navigate the aftermath and emerge with its values and reputation intact.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
