The Sydney Sweeney ad for American Eagle revisited: what can it teach us about branding in the 2020s?

I've been thinking a lot about the Sydney Sweeney American Eagle controversy lately. Because as the year draws to a close, I think it says something important about the world we're now in.

For those who missed it: back in July, American Eagle released a campaign with the tagline "Sydney Sweeney has great jeans". The pun on genes/jeans was accompanied by the actor discussing hereditary traits whilst the camera lingered on her face. 

Some viewers saw an innocent pun, based on the fact Sydney Sweeney is devastatingly attractive. Others saw a dogwhistle to white supremacy, given her blonde, blue-eyed appearance and her previous proximity to MAGA imagery.

Anatomy of a controversy

Most of my friends don't work in the media, advertising or entertainment, and a quick straw poll revealed that few of them were actually aware of this controversy. But it doesn't take many voices to make a lot of noise online, and so at the time, it's reasonable to say that "the internet erupted". 

It didn't stop there, though. Rival brands like Old Navy and Ralph Lauren responded with inclusive counter-campaigns. Donald Trump weighed in in favour of the ad. When Sydney finally addressed it months later in a GQ interview, she refused to engage with the accusations. Actor Aimee Lou Wood responded with a vomiting emoji. And round and round we went again.

So was this a carefully planned campaign to exploit underlying racism in American society? Maybe I'm an optimist, but I like to think the truth is more mundane: a creative team thought they'd found a clever wordplay and didn't think it through. But really, that's almost beside the point.

What fascinates me is how rapidly we've arrived at a place where a jeans ad can become this polarising. And here's what I think this says, about where we've got to as a society.

Civility vs safety

You know how when you accidentally bump into someone on the street, you both do that awkward shuffle, apologise, maybe chuckle a bit? Even if it wasn't your fault, you still say "Sorry!". It's not a big deal, though; just behaviour that seems natural, and helps us all get along with our day.

The point is, as human beings, we're generally quite civilised when we're face-to-face. But put us in a car – a protective metal shell that feels like armour – and it can be a different story. As I'm constantly reminded via YouTube Shorts (the algorithm knows me so well), road rage regularly transforms perfectly reasonable humans into dangerous monsters. 

If you think about it, behind the anonymity of our laptops and phones, it's often the same. We can't see the other person's face, can't hear their tone, can't experience the thousand tiny calibrations that happen in real-life conversation. So we assume the worst. Which means reasoned discussion on social media has become a rare thing indeed.

Instead, like being in a crowd of noisy sports fans, we pick sides and defend them to the death. Nuance dies, and everything becomes a battle. Worse still, we don't even realise we're doing it: we genuinely believe it's the other side who's being uniformly awful.

What this means for brands

This polarisation isn't just changing how we talk on social media. It's reshaping society. We're increasingly sorting ourselves into tribes, with completely different interpretations of the same cultural symbols. A national flag means heritage and pride to some, exclusion and racism to others. A vintage pickup truck is either wholesome nostalgia or a retrograde political statement. And this all creates an atmosphere where even a jeans can become a minefield.

I genuinely don't know if the American Eagle campaign was intentionally provocative or catastrophically naive. But in 2025, it doesn't really matter what you intended. What matters is how your message lands with audiences who are primed to see threats everywhere. Because, frankly, their use of social media has taught them that threats are everywhere.

This is the new reality for anyone working in branding. What reads as harmless nostalgia to one group is a coded message to another. What feels like inclusive progress to some feels like pandering or erasure to others. You can create something you think is apolitical – like a simplified version of the Cracker Barrel logo – and watch it become a political football anyway.

What brands should do

Does this mean we should all tread lightly, sand down every edge, and produce nothing but beige corporate safety? God, I hope not. That would be a dismal future for creativity. But it does mean we need a greater sensitivity to who our audiences actually are and how they think. Not in a hand-wringing, focus-grouped-to-death way, but in a genuinely thoughtful one

As a writer, my instinct is always "Publish and be dammed". But as a human being, I don't want to upset people unless I've actually set out to upset them, and have good reason to. And so while it's a pain, I think that in the mid-2020s we need to ask harder questions in the creative process. 

Who are we actually talking to? What cultural baggage does this image carry? How might this land with someone who doesn't share our assumptions? Are we being provocative intentionally or accidentally? And if we're going to wade into culturally loaded territory – whether it's Americana, heritage, beauty standards, or any other minefield – do we have something meaningful to say, or are we just winding people up because we want attention?

The internet's response to Sydney Sweeney's non-apology tells you everything about where we are now. Some people saw deflection and privilege. Others saw a woman refusing to be bullied into apologising for doing her job. Both were watching the same interview, but it feels like they were from different planets.

And yet, if those same people met in the street after accidentally bumping into each other, you can easily imagine they might strike up a friendly conversation about the weather, maybe even part feeling like they'd made a friend.

A messy future

The brands that responded to the jeans controversy with inclusive campaigns understood something important: if you're going to play with patriotic imagery in 2025, you need to bring context. You need to show who you're celebrating and why. You can't just throw up a flag and expect everyone to salute.

That might sound complicated, but it's the world we're branding in now. Not one conversation, but multiple ones that barely speak the same language.

Yes, this stuff has become messier, more fraught, and infinitely more complicated than it used to be. But understanding that is the first step to navigating it. Even when you're just trying to sell someone a pair of jeans.