Sydney Sweeney's American Eagle Ad—When Marketing Misses the Mark, Can Brands Bounce Back? | Reimagining Retail

Summary

Behind the Numbers: An EMARKETER Podcast
Episode: Sydney Sweeney's American Eagle Ad—When Marketing Misses the Mark, Can Brands Bounce Back? | Reimagining Retail
Release Date: August 13, 2025

---

Introduction

In this episode of Reimagining Retail, part of EMARKETER’s "Behind the Numbers" podcast series, host Susie David Kenyon delves into the complexities of marketing campaigns that fail to resonate as intended. The discussion is sparked by the controversial American Eagle jeans campaign featuring Sydney Sweeney, which has ignited a whirlwind of mixed reactions across various media outlets, including backlash and unexpected praise from figures like former President Trump.

Susie David Kenyon opens the conversation by highlighting how quickly public perception can shift, noting past instances such as Peloton's 2019 "Gift from a Husband" ad and Dove's "Real Beauty" campaign, to illustrate that missteps in marketing are not new phenomena.

---

Defining "Miss the Mark" in Marketing

The episode begins with Susie inviting her guests to unpack what it means for a marketing campaign to "miss the mark."

Sky Canavas, Principal Analyst, explains:

"It can fall flat and not generate the attention or buzz or sales that it was ultimately aiming for. [00:02:50]"

He further distinguishes between campaigns that fail to engage and those that spark controversy, questioning whether the latter can still be beneficial in the long run despite initial backlash.

Arielle Fager, Analyst, adds another dimension:

"How are consumers responding in terms of social media... and also how are consumers responding in terms of what they're actually purchasing and buying? [00:03:25]"

Arielle emphasizes that while brands may face criticism, the direct impact on sales isn't always clear-cut, underscoring the multifaceted nature of evaluating a campaign's success or failure.

---

Impact on Core Customers and Brand Equity

Susie probes further into the potential alienation of core customers versus attracting new ones through controversial campaigns.

Arielle Fager states:

"You can't make everybody happy... as long as you're keeping your core consumer in mind and your core consumer is happy, then I think that's doing your job. [00:04:24]"

She emphasizes that alienating core customers is a significant misstep, though brands may tolerate backlash from non-core audiences to some extent.

Sky Canavas elaborates on brand loyalty:

"If you attract customers because of a controversy, maybe those customers aren't going to be that loyal... [00:05:31]"

He questions the longevity of customer loyalty when engagement stems from controversy rather than genuine brand affinity.

---

Analysis of American Eagle's Ad Campaign

The heart of the episode centers on American Eagle's recent ad campaign featuring Sydney Sweeney, which has sparked diverse reactions.

Sky Canavas critiques the campaign:

"They didn't really think about the impact of what's kind of a poor joke or pun... [00:12:24]"

He points out that the campaign's attempt to blend sexiness with a "genes" pun fell flat, leading to perceptions of the message as creepy and disconnected from consumer sensibilities.

Arielle Fager reflects on personal impact:

"For me, I definitely would think twice about shopping with them... [00:11:24]"

She acknowledges that while the immediate sales impact is uncertain, the personal and anecdotal negative sentiments suggest potential long-term repercussions.

---

Lessons from Past Campaigns

Susie draws parallels with previous marketing missteps to contextualize the current situation.

Sky Canavas recalls:

"They were caught up in the whole Sydney Sweeney sexy selling jeans aspect... [00:12:24]"

He contrasts the intended nostalgic homage to 80s ads with the actual reception, suggesting a disconnect between the brand's intentions and consumer perceptions.

Arielle Fager highlights the importance of external perspectives:

"Having an outside agency helps brands maybe see outside of themselves... [00:14:58]"

She posits that external agencies can provide valuable insights that internal teams might overlook, potentially preventing misaligned campaigns.

---

Strategies to Mitigate and Recover from Campaign Failures

The discussion shifts to actionable strategies for brands to handle and recover from campaigns that miss the mark.

Arielle Fager advises:

"Number one is to listen. Consumers want to be listened to... [00:17:11]"

She underscores the importance of social listening and understanding consumer sentiment before crafting responses.

Sky Canavas adds:

"They have to respond too, in some way... [00:18:20]"

He criticizes American Eagle's traditional and ineffective response to the backlash, advocating for more authentic and engaged communication.

Arielle Fager emphasizes future-focused apologies:

"Focus on a future looking thing... how you would do something differently in the future... [00:18:22]"

She suggests that brands should outline actionable steps to address the concerns raised, demonstrating a commitment to improvement.

Sky Canavas on narrative control:

"Brands have to increasingly accept that they don't control their narratives... [00:21:32]"

He recommends leveraging user-generated content and influencer strategies to foster two-way conversations, enhancing brand relatability and resilience against backlash.

---

Conclusion and Key Takeaways

As the episode wraps up, Susie summarizes the critical insights shared:

• Authenticity in response is paramount; brands must genuinely engage with consumers rather than offering bland statements.
• Understanding the Audience is crucial; campaigns should resonate with core consumers while being mindful of broader cultural sensitivities.
• External Perspectives can provide valuable checks against internal biases, potentially averting misaligned campaigns.
• Agility in Response ensures that brands can swiftly and effectively address any fallout from controversial campaigns.
• Engaging Communications foster stronger brand-consumer relationships, mitigating the long-term negative impacts of initial missteps.

Susie David Kenyon concludes:

"As an ad, you're going to do your best to showcase your brand ethos and if you're prepared for the potential backlash that may come... [00:22:34]"

She reinforces the necessity for a multi-strategy approach that combines diverse channels and authentic engagement to navigate the volatile landscape of modern marketing.

---

Notable Quotes:

• Susie David Kenyon: "Sometimes a brand puts out a campaign and the Internet goes wild, but it's not always in the way that the brand had hoped. [00:01:10]"

• Sky Canavas: "If you attract customers because of a controversy, maybe those customers aren't going to be that loyal. [00:05:31]"

• Arielle Fager: "Consumers want to be listened to. I know I do. [00:17:39]"

---

This episode serves as a comprehensive exploration of the delicate balance brands must maintain in their marketing endeavors, highlighting the importance of audience understanding, authentic engagement, and strategic agility in the face of potential missteps.

Transcript

[Susie David Kenyon]

Unlock more growth with awin. Tackle acquisition, conversions and retention by tapping into a network of over a million affiliate partners with everything from partner management to reporting and payments in one easy dashboard, AWIN helps brands drive real, scalable results. Visit awin.comemarketer to learn more. Hello, listeners. Today is Wednesday, August 13th. Welcome to Reimagining Retail, an E marketer podcast made possible by awin. This is the show where we talk about how retail collides with every part of our lives. I'm your guest host, Susie David Kenyon. On today's episode, we're going to talk about marketing campaigns that miss the mark. But before we get to that, let's meet today's guests. Joining me for today's episode, we have analyst Arielle Fager joining me from our studios in New York City. Hey, Arielle.

[Arielle Fager]

Hey, Susie. Happy to be here.

[Susie David Kenyon]

Thanks so much for joining me. And principal analyst Sky Canavas joining us virtually from Texas. Hey, Sky.

[Sky Canavas]

Hey, Susie. Good to be back.

[Susie David Kenyon]

Thanks for joining us. I'm very excited to have you both here to talk about a topic we debate often, especially since our job is about watching what brands are doing closely. The conversation was reignited by the latest American Eagle jeans campaign. Headlines like Vanity Fair's Sydney Sweeney under fire after controversial American Eagle ad campaign. And more recently, People.com wrote American Eagle stock rises after Trump praises the ad amid backlash. This just shows us how quickly every situation can evolve and how there are so many different mixed reactions and headlines. So with that, it got us thinking. Sometimes a brand puts out a campaign and the Internet goes wild, but it's not always in the way that the brand had hoped. And this isn't just a 2025 thing. Think back to Peloton's 2019 gift from a husband ad. Or last year when Apple did the iPad flattening creativity ad campaign or Dove's Real Beauty ad campaign. In 2017, even merch can stir backlash. Remember when H and M did the coolest monkey in the jungle hoodie? Anyways, these moments happen more often than we realize. And the truth is, what feels tone deaf to one person might actually seem bold and cheeky and maybe even empowering for someone else. So in today's episode, we're asking, what does it really mean for a campaign to miss the mark? And what can brands actually do about it? Okay, so let's get started. From the top. Sky, Ariel, how are we even thinking about defining miss the mark? What does that actually mean?

[Sky Canavas]

Well, it can mean a lot of things. It can fall flat and not generate the attention or buzz or sales that it was ultimate aiming for. That's one end of the spectrum. And on the other you have campaign like American Eagles which generates a huge amount of controversy. There's backlash and then there's backlash to the backlash. But it may ultimately result in higher sales, more attention, and that raises the question of whether all of it is good for the brand in the long run or whether it's detrimental to the brand and alienating them from their core customer.

[Arielle Fager]

Yeah, I kind of think about it in two ways. One being kind of how are consumers responding in terms of social media and all of that, and then also how are consumers responding in terms of what they're actually purchasing and buying? I think a lot of times we see brands called out by consumers, but there doesn't seem to really be an impact on their bottom line. So I think you can kind of look at it in a couple different ways and really it depends on kind of what the goal of the campaign was and kind of the long term effects, which can be hard to measure.

[Susie David Kenyon]

Yeah, and I heard you both saying it slightly differently about alienating your core customer and thinking about the brand messaging. So what happens if you are doing something that hits with the core, but then there are all these ripple effects of the alienated just consumer, maybe not your customer. What do you do about that? Is that still missing the mark?

[Arielle Fager]

I think it depends. I think you can't make everybody happy. And that's something we've talked about quite a lot when we've been having these discussions. And I think as long as you're keeping your core consumer in mind and your core consumer is happy, then I think that that's doing your job. Of course, every brand wants to appeal to as many people as possible, but I think alienating your core consumer would be kind of the top of the list of brand sins. And then if you, you know, alienating other people might be a little further down the list.

[Sky Canavas]

I think campaigns typically want to create positive associations with the brand and foster brand equity, create a sense of brand affinity with customers. Typically there's a core audience that brands are going for and a core customer that can become the brand's fans. If you attract customers because of a controversy, maybe those customers aren't going to be that loyal. Are they going to really be brand fans? Are they just latching onto a brand out of opposition rather than out of true affinity with the brand?

[Susie David Kenyon]

Yeah. And then how long will they last? And it's not even just merch and actual marketing campaigns. In this sort of context. But it's also, if you guys remember, J.C. penney had the new president who came and said like, I want to change the store layouts and I want to change the everyday low price situation versus promotions and coupons. And that alienated a bunch of people. And then they had to sort of like claw back to their core customer. So it feels like you can have misses that happen when you don't understand your core customer that have lasting impacts as well.

[Arielle Fager]

Absolutely. It all kind of drills down to understanding who your audience is, understanding what motivates them and understanding what then would alienate them or, you know, make them turn to another brand.

[Susie David Kenyon]

And do we feel like in today's world of many different channels, the message that you deliver and the channel coming together matter?

[Sky Canavas]

Oh, absolutely. Because particularly with younger consumers, they want to engage in a two way dialogue or conversation with brands. I think a big lesson from this American Eagle controversy is that brands don't control the narrative of their campaigns as much as they might try to. And trying to stick to that and, and take the kind of old fashioned or traditional approach of one way messaging really seems to fall flat with a lot of younger consumers and it's sparking controversy. But the long term, the engagement by American Eagle on their social platforms, on different channels, a lot of this campaign is on Instagram, but it's very much in the traditional kind of one way message. They're telling us what the message is and consumers are, at least from a lot of the comments are not responding that positively to it.

[Arielle Fager]

Yeah, it seems, you know, following their, their response to consumers response to the ad, it seems like, yeah, they're not necessarily very interested in creating a conversation with consumers. And I kind of want to say that's a little bit of a miss. I think younger consumers, especially as sky said, really want to be heard by brands. I think they want to know that they're having an impact. So if you have a very social heavy presence, I think you really have to take that into account where you're going to get a lot of comments. You might get dragged a little bit for not really participating in that two way conversation.

[Susie David Kenyon]

And what I'm hearing you say is that also brings us to this point around a real mission versus sparking a conversation. And for American Eagle, they maybe thought that they were being super cheeky and fun and hoping to spark a conversation, but it sounds like they're not exactly engaging. So is there a world where you can be cheeky and spark a conversation? Maybe be a little bit Controversial, but still it not be a total miss.

[Arielle Fager]

Absolutely. I definitely think that that is possible. I think, again, it really does go back to knowing your audience. I think that, you know, people can be very playful with brands. We see. I see a lot in on TikTok, on social media brands having a lot of fun with the comments. And it's really fun to see kind of the back and forth between, you know, just regular TikTok users and brands. And I think that you have to be true to your brand's vision, your mission, and you also have to just be wary about, like, the hot kind of sensitive topics that are happening currently with consumers.

[Susie David Kenyon]

It's that. Right. Current environment too. That and the reason why we picked some examples from beyond 2025 is because this happens all the time. It's just that right now it feels a little bit more charged. And I think some of that also has to do with the different social channels and how quickly a message can. Can go viral and spiral. Do you guys think that when a message goes viral like this, there is such a thing as bad press or is any kind of press good?

[Sky Canavas]

So I think it comes down to the brand associations that come out of a campaign. We see that if people are talking about a brand in a negative way, but it's generating some buzz on one side, again, how long is that going to support the brand or how is that going to translate into sales? We'll hear a little more, I guess, at the end of this month when American Eagle reports its results. There won't be much from this campaign directly in the last quarter's results, but I expect that there will be questions about it and we'll see how deep they go into their responses and how much they can say about the overall impact.

[Arielle Fager]

Yeah, I agree with Sky. I think in general, I do think there is such a thing as bad PR or bad press, but I also think that it's. It's not as common and I think we have to, in this specific situation, kind of wait to see if we could categorize this as bad press or not Specifically talking about the American Eagle.

[Susie David Kenyon]

Campaign, though, I mean, I'm going to play devil's advocate and say even if their sales were amazing, it could still leave a little tint. Right. Although I know we wanted to be as objective as possible and talk through what do you do as a brand if something goes wrong? Because there is a chance. I mean, right now we're seeing their market cap went up a little bit. There is a chance that their sales will also. Skyrocket but it might be tainted. And I think in particular for this campaign, it feels like they tried so hard to do some nostalgia with it and thinking that the Gen Z population would be super interested in reliving some of the 80s ads for jeans. And maybe that didn't quite work out. It was like a hot mess kind of in some ways. But it might actually have a positive impact on their sales. So does that mean it was a mission again?

[Arielle Fager]

It all goes back to how you're defining a miss and, and what, what you hope to achieve. You know, for me, I definitely think differently of American Eagle at this point. You know, I'm not their core consumer anyway. I'm a 35 year old, I'm a little older than their core consumer. But you know, for me I definitely would think twice about shopping with them. And I think that, you know, anecdotally that is true among a lot of people I know. But you know, again, sales numbers, we'll see if, if there's really an impact. I think it's a hard, it's hard to say. Yeah, it's really difficult to say.

[Susie David Kenyon]

And sky, when you think about this whole American Eagle, I'm going to call it a debacle, maybe it's too big of a word, I'm not really sure, but it works. When you think about what happened, do you obviously were not in their offices, but do you feel like it was intentional provocative that went bad or intentional provocative that they knew this was going to maybe be not, you know, land quite as well as they had. In fact they had hoped that it would not maybe land quite as well.

[Sky Canavas]

I think that they were so caught up in the whole Sydney Sweeney sexy selling jeans aspect of it being potentially controversial which frankly isn't that controversial because a lot of her public Persona, her, the characters she plays are very sexy in a traditional or conventional way. So I think they were so caught up in that that they didn't really think about the impact of what's kind of a poor joke or pun. It's kind of like a dad joke. And the delivery of it with that like middle aged man voice saying Sydney Sweeney has great genes is a little creepy to me. And I think it did give like a lot of their younger female consumers kind of the ick sentiment in the sense that that's not really what they're looking for or interested in. But in terms of the genetics part or the eugenics part, I don't think that was really on their radar. I think they were so caught up in the Sex controversy or the sexiness selling genes part of it that they didn't. That wasn't really considered. And a lot of people who saw the campaign outside of American Eagle in advance also didn't register that potential for controversy. So it did kind of come out of consumers or TikTok users, younger audiences seizing on that and connecting it to like broader cultural flashpoints that are concerning to them and bringing that out. And then I think the part is like the response was very much like traditional and not in tune with how consumers expect brands to show up and respond. They kind of didn't say anything. They engaged a PR crisis firm. They put out a bland statement. It look like they took out the. They pulled the part of the ad campaign that featured Sydney Sweeney talking about her genes, the genetic genes pun and like inherited genes. And so it's been kind of. But they haven't said much else. And I was trying to find out like which agency created the ad. And it looks like it was an in house ad, which may also explain why it's not altogether that creative or exciting from an ad perspective.

[Susie David Kenyon]

Right. Cause it was like nostalgia coming back. Like the Guess gene ads, the Calvin Klein gene ads. You know, it felt like they were maybe trying to replicate that.

[Sky Canavas]

Yeah, a little of that. And a not very good tagline.

[Arielle Fager]

No, I think that's really interesting sky that this was in house. And I wonder if having an agency, an outside agency, helps brands kind of maybe see outside of themselves. I think, you know, as a writer, as a creator, sometimes it can be very hard for me to kind of see outside of the thing that I'm creating. And then someone comes in and says, oh well, what about this, this, this and this? And so I, you know, I wonder sometimes with, you know, these campaigns that are worked on in house, there's no outside perspective to kind of reflect maybe the consumer's point of view. So maybe that's something that brands could consider. You know, just thinking about, you know, I'm not going to say you should always have an agency, but maybe consider having those outside perspectives.

[Sky Canavas]

Sure. And they might have provided better options to begin with for a more interesting or exciting campaign that would have made better use of Sydney Sweeney and her, her diverse talents. Besides just being sexy. I think she has a pretty good sense of humor. I've seen her on SNL and she even sent up her sexiness on the. And so I think that could have provided better angles. I think what really resonates with younger consumers, gen Z, the TikTok generation, is humor in Advertising. And that can just be the weird meme humor that some brands have really successfully used. I think of Nutter Butter is one brand that's really weird on TikTok. And I think Wendy's also does some creative campaigns or videos and using user generated content as well.

[Susie David Kenyon]

Yeah. And if you have, whether it's an agency or not, if you have an extra layer or two of people that are not so close to the campaign, potentially they would have. Or if you ran a little bit of consumer ads around consumer sentiment, like research around the ads, you would get a better sense. Although we don't know what they did exactly. But as brands, as you're thinking about your ads, once one doesn't land, you started touching, you both started touching on this, like, what do you do? Can you recover? How do you manage this?

[Arielle Fager]

I think number one is to listen. I think consumers want to be listened to. I know I do. And so I think that that's the first thing is kind of really digging into some social listening, you know, just really kind of taking stock of what people are saying and thinking about why before you craft any kind of response. I would say, like, for me, that would be a good place to start.

[Susie David Kenyon]

Yeah.

[Sky Canavas]

And then they have to respond too, in some way. And I think part of the challenges in the current political environment, brands are becoming more afraid of coming out and standing up for the values that they previously espoused. American Eagle didn't come out and say, no, this isn't about eugenics and we're against that. The extreme implications that some people are seeing in the ads, and they didn't come out and start a conversation, instead they kind of retreated into their shell and took the traditional route of saying as little as possible for as long as possible and then made some bland gestures, appeasement.

[Susie David Kenyon]

So be authentic in your response.

[Arielle Fager]

Yeah. I would also say something that I think is important in any kind of response or apology to something where, you know, people have been hurt or upset is to kind of focus on a future looking thing, you know, thinking about next steps, thinking about how you would do something differently in the future. And again, it has to be navigated with authenticity. You don't want to be like, well, of course we're going to be perfect in the future. But I think giving, giving consumers some kind of, you know, action plan to say this is how we will move forward, I think could be, you know, a good thing and gives consumers again like a, okay, they're, they're trying to remedy this or trying to be better in the Future.

[Sky Canavas]

And it's tough because it was I think their most expensive campaign or they spent a lot of money on this just on getting Sydney Sweeney to be in their ad. So there is a hesitation around completely pulling that or reversing course. But I think brands need to nowadays and you know, always, I think with the impact of social and consumers wanting to have more of a voice, they need to be prepared for backlash and backlash to backlash and have some processes in place to be agile in their responses and, and make moves and not just thinking that they have a campaign and are going to put it out there and that's done, that's it.

[Susie David Kenyon]

And even with the best intentions, I think, like if I think about the iPad last year, the controversy around the dad and the child and to use the iPad to help with her homework or whatever it was so that he had more time with her, like got a very large cohort of artists very upset about how AI is going to replace them, which was obviously not the intention. So even when you have the best intentions as a brand, what are some things you should be doing to just make sure you're not going to have backlash or that you're ready for it and that you have some sort of explanation?

[Arielle Fager]

I mean, I think sky just touched on just being kind of prepared. You know, as I said, you're not going to make everyone happy. There's probably going to be some small or large subset of consumers who are not enjoying your campaign for whatever reason. So kind of a just be prepared for that's the baseline. And then, you know, I think, it's hard to say, I think every situation is different, but it all goes back to authenticity. You know, be authentic, address concerns authentically.

[Susie David Kenyon]

As an ad, you're going to do your best to showcase your brand ethos and if you're prepared for the potential backlash that may come. And then I didn't even think about the backlash to the backlash. And you respond to it in an authentic way, in a two way communication where it's viable, then you may be able to come out on top.

[Arielle Fager]

Yeah, I think consumers are smart. I think they know when a brand is trying to be to level with them and treat them on a one to one basis. So I think that's good. Intentions will always win out.

[Sky Canavas]

And I think brands have to increasingly accept that they don't control their narratives or their campaigns in the way that they used to because of social and the influence of that. And maybe they're better served not creating these one way ad campaigns and instead engaging users in their campaigns using more user generated content influencers strategies that really will speak to their audiences and keep them engaged and create more of that two way conversation rather than the one way brand messaging.

[Arielle Fager]

Yeah, that's a really good point actually. We definitely have seen consumers say they're more interested in seeing people like them in campaigns, seeing, you know, regular people. And I think, you know, Sydney Sweeney obviously is a celebrity. She's highly aspirational. I mean, obviously she's gorgeous. So I think maybe, you know, that putting people who are real, who are more representative of actual consumers is just a great way to like safeguard against controversy.

[Susie David Kenyon]

Right. And it sounds to me like as we wrap that what we once used to do in marketing may not work anymore, regardless of the undertones or the confluence of events. And to make sure that you have a multi strategy in place, which could include a big billboard, but also other channels to engage with your consumer and to make sure that if something does go awry, whether it's a product or an ad or a tagline, that you have a way to manage that that is authentic to your core. I think it's a great place to end because that's all the time we have for today. Thanks so much, Arielle for joining me in the office.

[Arielle Fager]

Oh, this is such a fun discussion. Thank you.

[Susie David Kenyon]

And thank you sky, for making time to join us today.

[Sky Canavas]

Oh, thanks for having me back, Suzy. Always a pleasure.

[Susie David Kenyon]

Always a pleasure. And thank you to our listeners and to our team that edits the podcast. Please leave a rating or review and remember to subscribe to the behind the Numbers podcast. We'll be back next Wednesday with another episode of Reimagining retailer and on Friday join Marcus for another episode of behind the Numbers, an emarketer podcast made possible by Awin.