American Eagle’s Campaign: What Went Wrong?

By Chasalee Romero

At this point, we all know about the infamous American Eagle “jeans” campaign starring Sydney Sweeney. On paper, it should have been a win. She is young, trendy and taking over Hollywood right now. But instead of a fresh, stylish rollout, what we got was…. denim horror. The ad quickly received backlash from thousands of users across social media, with many criticizing its confusing visuals and overall tone. Some even compared it to Brooke Shields’ controversial Calvin Klein ad in the 1980s, not because it was iconic, but because it left viewers with the same uneasy question: What exactly was the brand trying to say?

To get a more in-depth perspective, I spoke with advertising major Mackensie Chewning about why she thinks the campaign went wrong. Chewning said American Eagle made a critical error by straying from the brand identity it has spent decades building. The company has always positioned itself as a brand for young people who want to express individuality and style. “Nothing about this ad communicates that idea,” Chewning said. “It’s as if they were targeting a completely different audience, ignoring the customers who have been loyal for years.”

She explained that the campaign’s wordplay and messaging also contributed to the problem. Chewning highlighted how the pun on “jeans” and “genes” sent unintended signals that leaned toward exclusivity rather than inclusivity. From an advertising standpoint, she said, this type of messaging risks alienating a large portion of the brand’s audience and undermines the connection the company has built over the years.

Chewning also criticized the aesthetic and production choices. “American Eagle abandoned all of the usual guidelines for creating a good advertisement,” she explained. The combination of dim lighting, odd camera angles and unusual set dressing created a sense of unease rather than excitement. Even the sound design, including the lone noise of jeans scrunching, added to the confusion instead of enhancing the ad. Chewning said these choices made it difficult for viewers to connect with the brand or its products.

“The campaign’s choice to feature Sydney Sweeney was not inherently a bad decision,” Chewning said. Sweeney has cultural relevance, broad appeal and star power that could have boosted the brand. But Chewning stressed that a celebrity is only as effective as the concept and execution behind them. In this case, Sweeney’s presence could have been a strength, but the way she was portrayed instead reinforced a narrow and exclusive image. “They took an incredibly conventionally attractive woman and repeatedly made nods toward her ‘perfect’ features,” she explained. “It unintentionally sends a message that those traits are superior, which alienates other audiences and contradicts American Eagle’s history of inclusivity and diversity.”

Social media further magnified the campaign’s missteps. Platforms like TikTok and Twitter create an environment where negative reactions can spread rapidly. “People had a lot of issues with this campaign, and social media gave them a platform to share those opinions. Seeing others with the same thoughts emboldened more people to speak out, and the cycle continued until the backlash was almost unavoidable,” she said.

Ultimately, the main takeaway is clear: Brands cannot afford to abandon their audience. American Eagle spent decades cultivating customers by emphasizing inclusivity, self-expression and individuality. One campaign, however, ignored all of that. “As advertisers, we have a job to communicate a company’s values,” Chewning said. “The customer is one of the most important stakeholders and their trust and support are very hard to gain back.”

The Sydney Sweeney campaign could have been a defining moment. Instead, it serves as a cautionary tale about how easily a brand can lose its footing when it strays from the identity and values that made it successful in the first place.