Marketing Genes to Sell Jeans
- Gina Marie Longo
- Apr 8
- 4 min read
by Dani Schiff.
At the end of July, 2025, American Eagle released a marketing campaign featuring actress Sydney Sweeney titled “Sydney Sweeney has Great Jeans.” The name was inspired by the attention Sweeney has received regarding her conventionally attractive appearance. The public has compared her to Megan Fox as both celebrities are known for their bombshell presence. The campaign was meant to be tongue-and-cheek, using Sweeney’s stardom and physical appeal to promote their jeans.
What appeared as a simple campaign quickly turned into a PR disaster as netizens pointed out its controversies. Critics have pointed out its not-so-subtle ties to white supremacy and eugenic dogwhistles. For example, one advertisement has the word “jeans” from the slogan crossed out and replaced with “genes.” The reasoning for it being controversial is because Sweeney is a blonde-haired, blue-eyed, white woman with a body type that is routinely catered towards the male gaze. The advertisement implies that Sweeney’s appearance is and should be the ideal.
A key aspect of this controversy lies within the words chosen to be included by American Eagle. One ad from this campaign features a close-up angle of Sweeney's body. In a voiceover, the actress discusses how “genes are passed down from parent to offspring” and that the genes she inherited are blue. Instead of using words like child or kid, netizens have pointed out how odd it is for American Eagle to use “offspring.” Additionally, “offspring” and “great genes" are known to be dog whistles for eugenics and white supremacy, as they are littered throughout pro-eugenic rhetoric. Eugenics is known as the effort to make a better version of the human race by excluding any form of diversity for whiteness and racial purity (National Human Genome Research Institute). It is done by selecting who can reproduce in order to increase the number of white people in our world. Eugenics were historically used and promoted during Hitler’s reign in Nazi Germany. Netizens also point out that Sweeney saying her genes are “blue” is another dogwhistle but for “blue lives matter” or pro-police discussions. Both eugenics and “blue lives matter” are directly connected with white supremacy. This subtle nod to these harmful movements and ideologies is why this campaign became so controversial.
Companies tend to undergo some sort of action that tells customers where their company values lie. The most common example is during June, when corporations turn their logos rainbow for Pride month. This is known as corporate sociopolitical activism or CSA. This phenomenon did not become as common as we see it today until after the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests, when younger consumers became more politically conscious with their spending power (Wang and Bouroncle). CSA can be used for good and bad reasons. Positively, it can provide more business opportunities for the corporation. Negatively, if a company agrees with something many customers disagree with, then they may lose business (Atanga et al.). Regarding American Eagle’s campaign, it is interesting that they and Sweeney publicly decided to agree with white supremacy at this time. This leads me to believe this campaign is more than just a promotion for jeans. It’s a promotion of what they and far-right extremists believe to be American ideals. It is not a consequence that under Trump’s current authoritarian administration, which is fueled by white supremacy and has been repeatedly compared to Nazi Germany, that a company with “America” in its name would “accidentally” have marketing laced with this problematic messaging.
Furthermore, I believe that this campaign is an example of how implicit imagery can influence and reflect the current political climate. Subtle or hidden images or
knowledge embedded within media have been used in many examples across time. It is famously seen within controlling images; these are known as an imagination of an identity that reinforces differentiation among social groups through objectification or domination
(Collins 85). These can be seen through the racial stereotypes of the “Mammy” and “Sapphire.” These examples promote and reinforce racism against Black women by normalizing them to what white supremacy expects them to be. For instance, the “Mammy” is known to be a smaller, fat Black enslaved woman who takes care of white children for her enslaver. I believe American Eagle was using eugenic dogwhistles just as controlling images were used during Slavery. The implicit messaging and the refusal to deny the accusations can be seen as evidence for this.
During the initial backlash, Sweeney stayed silent. Her deafening response only led critics to believe that she agrees with the campaign’s messaging. Her response changed during an interview with GQ where the interviewer directly brought up the ads. When asked about the public reaction, Sweeney replied saying, “I did a jean ad. I mean, the reaction definitely was a surprise, but I love jeans. All I wear are jeans. I’m literally in jeans and a T-shirt every day of my life,” (Stoeffel). This is an interesting response when the reaction is centered on genetic superiority. Sweeney was given the opportunity to clarify her stance, instead she allowed herself to be seen supporting an ideology as harmful as white supremacy.
INTERVIEWER: “Is there something that you want to say about the ad itself? The criticism of the content was basically that, maybe specifically in this political climate, white people shouldn’t joke about genetic superiority.”
SWEENEY: “I think that when I have an issue that I want to speak about, people will hear.” (Stoeffel)
Luckily for us, the implicit messaging of the campaign did not work the way the marketers hoped it would. American Eagle has lost popularity in the public eye, and Sweeney is still facing a ton of backlash online for her behavior and is likely to be shunned from her acting career. There is no evidence that supports individuals believing in white supremacy just by watching these advertisements. However, it does not deny that companies can embed implicit messaging in order for the public to believe in new information. We, as scholars, researchers, and activists, need to be aware more than ever that messaging within advertising is not just a consequence.
Dani Schiff is a passionate undergraduate student in the Departments of Sociology and Gender, Sexuality, and Women's Studies with a concentration in LGBTQ+ Studies at Virginia Commonwealth University, and is enrolled in VCU's Accelerated Digital Sociology Master's Program.
Comments